|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 14:05:02 GMT
I'm trying to understand why you suggested a "You're confusing x with y" analogy that you believe is false. I dont see how moral statements are any different to any other statement about the world. Moral facts are just like scientific facts. One difference is that morals only obtain in individuals' brains. A lot of scientific facts do not only obtain in individuals' brains. And there can be no moral knowledge, because there are no moral truths.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:09:43 GMT
I dont see how moral statements are any different to any other statement about the world. Moral facts are just like scientific facts. One difference is that morals only obtain in individuals' brains. A lot of scientific facts do not only obtain in individuals' brains. And there can be no moral knowledge, because there are no moral truths. How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains? If there are no moral truths why even have laws? Why not do whatever you want to people, even rape and murder people to obtain your goals. If there are not moral truths what reason is there not to do this? Morality is only relative afterall.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 14, 2018 14:11:41 GMT
tpfkar So yes, you're creepy-demented. Why in the hell would I want to talk to you? And I don't mind complimenting your creepy pedo rape predatory thoughts. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.You're certainly talking to me here. Why are you doing that? Yet more of your silly semantic pap. Of course you'd try to equate posting on a message board with sharing a phone number and talking on the phone. I deal in posts, I surely don't have a creepy need to ineptly ask to hear posters' voices. I also don't need to feed the raw sick fantasies you already deal in, regardless of how persistently you continue begging. P.S. NOW is one of the the times to speak about the feelings of right and wrong and their origin. Not that moral statements being subjective affects their "weight". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 14, 2018 14:14:05 GMT
tpfkar One difference is that morals only obtain in individuals' brains. A lot of scientific facts do not only obtain in individuals' brains. And there can be no moral knowledge, because there are no moral truths. How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains? If there are no moral truths why even have laws? Why not do whatever you want to people, even rape and murder people to obtain your goals. If there are not moral truths what reason is there not to do this? Morality is only relative afterall. Because a lot of peoples' brains align enough on a lot of matters that they'll put you down. Where Eagles Dare
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 14:24:09 GMT
One difference is that morals only obtain in individuals' brains. A lot of scientific facts do not only obtain in individuals' brains. And there can be no moral knowledge, because there are no moral truths. How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains? If there are no moral truths why even have laws? Why not do whatever you want to people, even rape and murder people to obtain your goals. If there are not moral truths what reason is there not to do this? Morality is only relative afterall. "How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains?" The answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere. That moral judgments, moral stances, etc. only obtain in individuals' brains does not imply, of course, that moral judgments, moral stances and so on do not obtain in individuals' brains. The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 14:25:41 GMT
tpfkar You're certainly talking to me here. Why are you doing that? Yet more of your silly semantic pap. Of course you'd try to equate posting on a message board with sharing a phone number and talking on the phone. I deal in posts, I surely don't have a creepy need to ineptly ask to hear posters' voices. I also don't need to feed the raw sick fantasies you already deal in, regardless of how persistently you continue begging. P.S. NOW is one of the the times to speak about the feelings of right and wrong and their origin. Not that moral statements being subjective affects their "weight". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.What you asked was why you'd want to talk to me. You're talking to me here. If you wanted to say, "why would I want to share my phone number with you," you could just say that, and then I'd answer that question instead. Why not just be straightforward and type what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 14, 2018 14:32:13 GMT
tpfkar Yet more of your silly semantic pap. Of course you'd try to equate posting on a message board with sharing a phone number and talking on the phone. I deal in posts, I surely don't have a creepy need to ineptly ask to hear posters' voices. I also don't need to feed the raw sick fantasies you already deal in, regardless of how persistently you continue begging. P.S. NOW is one of the the times to speak about the feelings of right and wrong and their origin. Not that moral statements being subjective affects their "weight". As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.What you asked was why you'd want to talk to me. You're talking to me here. If you wanted to say, "why would I want to share my phone number with you," you could just say that, and then I'd answer that question instead. Why not just be straightforward and type what you mean? It was a rhetorical question, swift-dude. "Talking" via posting on a message board is very different than a voice conversation sharing phone numbers, regardless of your utter obtuseness and creepy begs. No, the answer is that I don't have any desire to hear your voice and nothing that would mean anything to me could come out of it over just message-board posting here. And I did post what I meant, I'm just not, among other things, hilariously conversationally stunted. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:40:03 GMT
How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains? If there are no moral truths why even have laws? Why not do whatever you want to people, even rape and murder people to obtain your goals. If there are not moral truths what reason is there not to do this? Morality is only relative afterall. "How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains?" The answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere. That moral judgments, moral stances, etc. only obtain in individuals' brains does not imply, of course, that moral judgments, moral stances and so on do not obtain in individuals' brains. The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere. "he answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere." So how is science different? "The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere." isnt that an objective moral principle then? That an inidividuals preferences should be fulfilled?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 14:50:11 GMT
"How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains?" The answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere. That moral judgments, moral stances, etc. only obtain in individuals' brains does not imply, of course, that moral judgments, moral stances and so on do not obtain in individuals' brains. The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere. "he answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere." So how is science different? "The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere." isnt that an objective moral principle then? That an inidividuals preferences should be fulfilled? Science is different in that rocks, for example, aren't just a phenomenon in persons' brains. People act on their preferences. It's not a principle. It's just something people do. And there's nothing objective about the moral parts of it, because the moral parts of it only occur in their brains. That's all that the subjective/objective distinction refers to, really--the location of the phenomenon. If it only occurs as a brain phenomenon (per mentality), then it's subjective. If it occurs elsewhere, it's objective. That's all the distinction amounts to. There are other upshots of it, but understanding the distinction is just understanding that it's about location.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 14, 2018 14:53:55 GMT
tpfkar So how is science different? Science via evidence establishes that people have values, and the only source has ultimately been peoples heads. Science doesn't address rightness and wrongness except as applied to certain standards. And any moral standard to apply would be subjective to begin with. Bullet
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:57:06 GMT
"he answer to that is pretty obvious. That's the location of the phenomenon (of moral judgments, moral stances, etc.) It's not located anywhere else. We can look elsewhere, but we won't find it elsewhere." So how is science different? "The reason that people that we have laws (not that all laws are morality-based, but we can ignore that), the reason that we don't just let everyone do what they want, etc. is because people make moral judgments, they have moral stances and so on. People have preferences about behavior. What you're asking is based on the idea that people have no preferences about behavior at all. That's not the case. People do have preferences. It's just that those preferences are a brain phenomenon. They're not found elsewhere." isnt that an objective moral principle then? That an inidividuals preferences should be fulfilled? Science is different in that rocks, for example, aren't just a phenomenon in persons' brains. People act on their preferences. It's not a principle. It's just something people do. And there's nothing objective about the moral parts of it, because the moral parts of it only occur in their brains. That's all that the subjective/objective distinction refers to, really--the location of the phenomenon. If it only occurs as a brain phenomenon (per mentality), then it's subjective. If it occurs elsewhere, it's objective. That's all the distinction amounts to. There are other upshots of it, but understanding the distinction is just understanding that it's about location. well yeah sure but its the same thing in a way. We observe how bodies behave and we conclude a set of laws "govern" their behaviour, just like we observe preferences people or animals have and we conclude we must act to fulfill those specific preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 15:16:51 GMT
Science is different in that rocks, for example, aren't just a phenomenon in persons' brains. People act on their preferences. It's not a principle. It's just something people do. And there's nothing objective about the moral parts of it, because the moral parts of it only occur in their brains. That's all that the subjective/objective distinction refers to, really--the location of the phenomenon. If it only occurs as a brain phenomenon (per mentality), then it's subjective. If it occurs elsewhere, it's objective. That's all the distinction amounts to. There are other upshots of it, but understanding the distinction is just understanding that it's about location. well yeah sure but its the same thing in a way. We observe how bodies behave and we conclude a set of laws "govern" their behaviour, just like we observe preferences people or animals have and we conclude we must act to fulfill those specific preferences. So, assuming that scientific laws exist, they're descriptive of what the world is like. They're not prescriptive. They don't suggest what the world should be like, where that could be different than what it is like. "We should act" or "we must act to fulfill these preferences" is not descriptive. It's prescriptive. There are no correct or incorrect prescriptions. Prescriptions are preferences just as well. They're simply a matter of what individuals desire. A science of morality notes that some people feel that it is morally permissible to murder. That's descriptive. Science doesn't offer prescriptions. Because prescriptions are not factual, beyond noting things like "Joe feels that we should such and such," or "These one hundred people agree that we should such and such." It's always about what some particular person(s) feel.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 15:24:33 GMT
well yeah sure but its the same thing in a way. We observe how bodies behave and we conclude a set of laws "govern" their behaviour, just like we observe preferences people or animals have and we conclude we must act to fulfill those specific preferences. So, assuming that scientific laws exist, they're descriptive of what the world is like. They're not prescriptive. They don't suggest what the world should be like, where that could be different than what it is like. "We should act" or "we must act to fulfill these preferences" is not descriptive. It's prescriptive. There are no correct or incorrect prescriptions. Prescriptions are preferences just as well. They're simply a matter of what individuals desire. A science of morality notes that some people feel that it is morally permissible to murder. That's descriptive. Science doesn't offer prescriptions. Because prescriptions are not factual, beyond noting things like "Joe feels that we should such and such," or "These one hundred people agree that we should such and such." It's always about what some particular person(s) feel. Right I think I might be misunderstanding you. Would you say statements like "you shouldnt kill people" or "taking away privacy is bad" are stupid statements the same way "cheese is agreeable" is a stupid statement because it is neither agreeable nor disagreeable. Different people will react to cheese differently and there is no "proper" way for your stomach etc to react to it. Is that what you are saying? Would you not also say that increasing utility is an objective principle, if not why?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 16:00:11 GMT
So, assuming that scientific laws exist, they're descriptive of what the world is like. They're not prescriptive. They don't suggest what the world should be like, where that could be different than what it is like. "We should act" or "we must act to fulfill these preferences" is not descriptive. It's prescriptive. There are no correct or incorrect prescriptions. Prescriptions are preferences just as well. They're simply a matter of what individuals desire. A science of morality notes that some people feel that it is morally permissible to murder. That's descriptive. Science doesn't offer prescriptions. Because prescriptions are not factual, beyond noting things like "Joe feels that we should such and such," or "These one hundred people agree that we should such and such." It's always about what some particular person(s) feel. Right I think I might be misunderstanding you. Would you say statements like "you shouldnt kill people" or "taking away privacy is bad" are stupid statements the same way "cheese is agreeable" is a stupid statement because it is neither agreeable nor disagreeable. Different people will react to cheese differently and there is no "proper" way for your stomach etc to react to it. Is that what you are saying? Would you not also say that increasing utility is an objective principle, if not why? Yes, it's like taste. I don't think that taste statements are stupid. And no, there's no objective principle of utility.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 14, 2018 22:16:02 GMT
Specificity isn't the problem as much as you ignoring what I'm saying. I'll be [more] specific too. Slavery did not end because some kind of moral light bulb came at the time of Emancipation. yeah I can see that you have to dodge the point a little, let me help. Prior to the civil war, in most of American society it was morally acceptable to keep slaves, from the build up to the civil war, through the emancipation up to modern times it became morally unacceptable to keep slaves, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation? CoolJGS☺ any response?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 15, 2018 1:33:39 GMT
yeah I can see that you have to dodge the point a little, let me help. Prior to the civil war, in most of American society it was morally acceptable to keep slaves, from the build up to the civil war, through the emancipation up to modern times it became morally unacceptable to keep slaves, how to you reconcile your claim that morality has not changed in light of that observation? CoolJGS☺ any response? I've checked back six times since you posted this. He was logged in five of those times. I can just hear the way his "brain" works when he gets caught in his dishonest act. "People keep saying I run away whenever I get caught not knowing what I'm talking about. I'm gonna show them by not answering!"
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 7:54:13 GMT
One difference is that morals only obtain in individuals' brains. A lot of scientific facts do not only obtain in individuals' brains. And there can be no moral knowledge, because there are no moral truths. How do morals only obtain in individuals' brains? If there are no moral truths why even have laws? Why not do whatever you want to people, even rape and murder people to obtain your goals. If there are not moral truths what reason is there not to do this? Morality is only relative afterall. There are no moral truths. Laws are made by the ruling group in society at a certain place and time and are also subject to change.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 15, 2018 11:23:14 GMT
More like devolving, at least in many ways. just look at the last 60 years or so... things have clearly gotten more immoral in many ways. but a liberal will probably see that as 'progress'. I can assure you that official Catholic moral teachings, which are the moral guide of the world (even though many ignore them), are not going to change (i.e. abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality etc will always be condemned like they have been since the beginning). so while people can change as time passes, God and His standards do not. God's standards are objective morality and there are in place for everyone's benefit even when they are not always easy to follow, but they are the truth. phludowinBut there is as it's what God teaches us through His church which is the official Catholic church teachings on morals etc. that's the fatal mistake many make as once you decide there is no objective morality then people can basically make things up as they go along and morals inevitably decline with that line of thinking as there is a little drop off here and a little there and people don't really see that stuff as it happens slowly but looking back say 60 years ago it's pretty clear in my mind that in many ways morality as taken a solid hit and it's accelerating.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 15, 2018 11:32:37 GMT
More like devolving, at least in many ways. just look at the last 60 years or so... things have clearly gotten more immoral in many ways. but a liberal will probably see that as 'progress'. I can assure you that official Catholic moral teachings, which are the moral guide of the world (even though many ignore them), are not going to change (i.e. abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality etc will always be condemned like they have been since the beginning). so while people can change as time passes, God and His standards do not. God's standards are objective morality and there are in place for everyone's benefit even when they are not always easy to follow, but they are the truth. phludowin But there is as it's what God teaches us through His church which is the official Catholic church teachings on morals etc. that's the fatal mistake many make as once you decide there is no objective morality then people can basically make things up as they go along and morals inevitably decline with that line of thinking as there is a little drop off here and a little there and people don't really see that stuff as it happens slowly but looking back say 60 years ago it's pretty clear in my mind that in many ways morality as taken a solid hit and it's accelerating. Don't just make things up as you go along, let God make things up as he goes along for you.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 15, 2018 14:02:35 GMT
I can assure you that official Catholic moral teachings, which are the moral guide of the world (even though many ignore them), are not going to change (i.e. abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality etc will always be condemned like they have been since the beginning). so while people can change as time passes, God and His standards do not. The question of slavery appears to be at least one exception to your rule about moral teachings of the Catholic Church never changing:
John Paul II included slavery among matters that are "intrinsically evil" -- prohibited "always and forever" and "without any exception" -- a violation of a universal, immutable norm. Yet slavery in some form was accepted as a fact of life in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, in much Christian theology and in Catholic teaching well into the 19th century...The fathers of the church accepted the buying, selling and owning of human beings. So did the popes: Muslim slaves were manning papal galleys until 1800. So did religious orders: Jesuits in colonial Maryland owned slaves, as did nuns in Europe and Latin America. Even St. Peter Claver, who in Colombia befriended, instructed and baptized African slaves, bought slaves to serve as interpreters. Theologians challenged abuses of slaveholding but rarely the practice itself. It was at the urging of Protestant Britain that the papacy condemned the slave trade in 1839. In 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished slavery, the Vatican finally condemned it. www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/a-church-that-can-and-cannot-change-dogma.html
|
|