The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 22:51:03 GMT
In my opinion morals are social constructs whose purpose is to ensure survival of those who practise them. Whether they are right or wrong can be measured by how well people who abide by them survive. The more they survive, and the happier they are that they do, the better the morals. If morality is to be judged by the happiness it brings about is that not an objective standard?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 22:51:56 GMT
In my opinion morals are social constructs whose purpose is to ensure survival of those who practise them. Whether they are right or wrong can be measured by how well people who abide by them survive. The more they survive, and the happier they are that they do, the better the morals. If morality is to be judged by the happiness it brings about is that not an objective standard? No. Happiness is subjective; and choosing happiness as a goal is a subjective decision as well.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 23:04:53 GMT
If morality is to be judged by the happiness it brings about is that not an objective standard? No. Happiness is subjective; and choosing happiness as a goal is a subjective decision as well. Yes quite possibly. I'm not actually arguing for moral universalism here by the way (though I do lean that way), I just think goz and some others here have made a faulty argument against it ie that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 23:13:14 GMT
No. Happiness is subjective; and choosing happiness as a goal is a subjective decision as well. Yes quite possibly. I'm not actually arguing for moral universalism here by the way (though I do lean that way), I just think goz and some others here have made a faulty argument against it ie that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact. In this case, I go with Occam's razor. If not everybody agrees on what moral truths are, then the simplest explanation is that such a truth doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 23:19:14 GMT
No. Happiness is subjective; and choosing happiness as a goal is a subjective decision as well. Yes quite possibly. I'm not actually arguing for moral universalism here by the way (though I do lean that way), I just think goz and some others here have made a faulty argument against it ie that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact. ... and I believe that you are wrong and diversity cannot co-exist with a moral fact.(as defined by those who believe in it..be they religious or not).
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 23:25:01 GMT
Yes quite possibly. I'm not actually arguing for moral universalism here by the way (though I do lean that way), I just think goz and some others here have made a faulty argument against it ie that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact. In this case, I go with Occam's razor. If not everybody agrees on what moral truths are, then the simplest explanation is that such a truth doesn't exist. I think one could invoke Occam against moral universalism but I don't think that's the way to do it. If there is moral truth there would be just as disagreement as if there were not simply because such a thing is by its nature unobservable. Even if some God appeared and spake commandments we could question if this God and what he is saying is good. So the no moral fact hypothesis has no more explanatory power than the moral fact hypothesis. One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one with and so more likely. That's a fine argument and pointing out diversity of moral opinion adds nothing to it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 23:30:03 GMT
... and I believe that you are wrong and diversity cannot co-exist with a moral fact.(as defined by those who believe in it..be they religious or not). Ok so you believe you are right and I believe I am right. Because we disagree, does that suggest neither of us is right? What about if we were to go to the politics board and ask everyone there whether they believed there was Russian influence in the last US election and if so, how much? We'd get a multitude of different opinions - would that mean there is no fact in the matter (even if you or I may never know it)?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 23:43:25 GMT
In this case, I go with Occam's razor. If not everybody agrees on what moral truths are, then the simplest explanation is that such a truth doesn't exist. I think one could invoke Occam against moral universalism but I don't think that's the way to do it. If there is moral truth there would be just as disagreement as if there were not simply because such a thing is by its nature unobservable. Even if some God appeared and spake commandments we could question if this God and what he is saying is good. So the no moral fact hypothesis has no more explanatory power than the moral fact hypothesis. One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one without and so more likely. That's a fine argument and pointing out diversity of moral opinion adds nothing to it. You realise that is nonsense right?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 23:45:43 GMT
... and I believe that you are wrong and diversity cannot co-exist with a moral fact.(as defined by those who believe in it..be they religious or not). Ok so you believe you are right and I believe I am right. Because we disagree, does that suggest neither of us is right? What about if we were to go to the politics board and ask everyone there whether they believed there was Russian influence in the last US election and if so, how much? We'd get a multitude of different opinions - would that mean there is no fact in the matter (even if you or I may never know it)? No. and No.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 23:46:39 GMT
I think one could invoke Occam against moral universalism but I don't think that's the way to do it. If there is moral truth there would be just as disagreement as if there were not simply because such a thing is by its nature unobservable. Even if some God appeared and spake commandments we could question if this God and what he is saying is good. So the no moral fact hypothesis has no more explanatory power than the moral fact hypothesis. One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one without and so more likely. That's a fine argument and pointing out diversity of moral opinion adds nothing to it. You realise that is nonsense right? What in particular? That a hypothetical world with fewer postulates is more likely? That's Occam's Razor.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 23:48:57 GMT
Ok so you believe you are right and I believe I am right. Because we disagree, does that suggest neither of us is right? What about if we were to go to the politics board and ask everyone there whether they believed there was Russian influence in the last US election and if so, how much? We'd get a multitude of different opinions - would that mean there is no fact in the matter (even if you or I may never know it)? No. and No. Ok so in those examples diversity of opinion has absolutely no bearing on fact. What's different between these cases and your insistence that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 17, 2018 0:04:10 GMT
You realise that is nonsense right? What in particular? That a hypothetical world with fewer postulates is more likely? That's Occam's Razor. "One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one without and so more likelyno moral facts = one without
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 17, 2018 0:05:43 GMT
What in particular? That a hypothetical world with fewer postulates is more likely? That's Occam's Razor. "One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one without and so more likelyno moral facts = one without Yes, sorry I just spotted that before you responded. I typed "without" but meant "with". Fixed now.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 17, 2018 0:07:23 GMT
"One could though ignore the disagreement aspect entirely and point out that a world with no moral facts is simpler than one without and so more likelyno moral facts = one without Yes, sorry I just spotted that before you responded. I typed "without" but meant "with". Fixed now. No problem Sweetpea! I am the last person to cast nasturtians on typos!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 17, 2018 0:10:22 GMT
Ok so in those examples diversity of opinion has absolutely no bearing on fact. What's different between these cases and your insistence that diversity of moral opinion means no moral fact? No again. People who are objective universalists CLAIM moral fact.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 17, 2018 0:28:37 GMT
People who are objective universalists CLAIM moral fact. Ok but one can claim moral fact and be wrong. So if two people claim a contradictory moral fact, at least one of them is wrong but that doesn't mean there is no moral fact.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 17, 2018 0:32:05 GMT
People who are objective universalists CLAIM moral fact. Ok but one can claim moral fact and be wrong. So if two people claim a contradictory moral fact, at least one of them is wrong but that doesn't mean there is no moral fact. ...and the whole point is, that in objective morality they don' t see that. They are right BECAUSE OF THAT MORAL FACT IN THEIR EYES..
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 17, 2018 0:38:11 GMT
Ok but one can claim moral fact and be wrong. So if two people claim a contradictory moral fact, at least one of them is wrong but that doesn't mean there is no moral fact. ...and the whole point is, that in objective morality they don' t see that. They are right BECAUSE OF THAT MORAL FACT IN THEIR EYES.. But that seems to me a different issue. Maybe you are right that those who endorse objective morality don't tend to consider they might be wrong in their moral stances. But why does that make morality subjective?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 18, 2018 16:14:59 GMT
or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality I think that's something of a false dichotomy. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some sort of universal moral truth, an idea of goodness if you want to get all Platonic about it. Since you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste goodness, people would debate amongst themselves what is good and as societies change, new arguments appear. In other words if there were an objective goodness, we would likely see the same diversity in moral viewpoints as if there weren't. So agreeing that moral viewpoints are diverse and evolve in no way requires a rejection of universal morality. To take slavery as an example, I can believe that slavery is universally wrong whilst conceding other people throughout history have disagreed. The only difference between the universalist and the subjectivist is the former thinks those who disagree are wrong as opposed to different. First, it's nice to see you back on the board Kiera! Second, I think there's two ways to counter this: 1. The probability argument, or the classic "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." From a Bayesian perspective, if something doesn't exist, the chances of finding (proof of) it is 0%; conversely, if something does exist, the chances of finding (proof of) it is <0%, so if we continue to look for it and don't find it, that's evidence that it doesn't exist. You can apply this same argument to, say, Bigfoot. For anything you can imagine, as long as it isn't logically impossible, there's a <0% chance that it exists; but "you're saying there's a chance" should never be an argument for seriously considering that it does exist, and we'd be better off just assuming that/acting like it doesn't exist. Otherwise you can make the same argument for any thing/being you can imagine. 2. The philosophy argument, or Hume's "No Ought from Is." Morals are entirely an "ought" thing, and "oughts" are all about our subjective feelings and desires, and subjective feelings and desires differ too much for there to be any universal "ought" derived from them. I don't see how one can seriously imagine something like "goodness" existing anywhere but in minds; if you can't sense it/measure it, and yet everyone has some kind of concept of it, where would that concept come from if not from our minds? The only time there are arguments about objective things is when there is inconclusive evidence or people are ignorant of whatever conclusive evidence there is: "is evolution the correct theory for explaining the diversity of life?" would be one such example, but even with that we can at least imagine what objective evidence would be, we can imagine that its correctness or falseness has some relation to states about reality that we can directly sense. I don't see how this is even imaginable with goodness; how can there be any direct evidence for something that we can't sense, and that requires us to feel a way about some state of reality? It seems to me that if you're going to start supposing that our feelings of goodness can be objective (or evidence of something objective), then any of our thoughts and feelings about anything could be objective/evidence of something objective, and that would be epistemic chaos.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 18, 2018 20:10:23 GMT
...and the whole point is, that in objective morality they don' t see that. They are right BECAUSE OF THAT MORAL FACT IN THEIR EYES.. But that seems to me a different issue. Maybe you are right that those who endorse objective morality don't tend to consider they might be wrong in their moral stances. But why does that make morality subjective? Yes. The fact that they both think that they are right and that both could both be wrong or right in the sense that they perceive it...ergo there is no objective ultimate universal right and wrong. History proves this nicely. So does the fact that there are different religions where even the ultimate 'moral wrong' of killing, has been optional since time immemorial and just look at the Christian society of the USA and the death penalty. You have to go no further.
|
|