Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#61

Post by EarthLaunch »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #50
ikken wrote: post #17

The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…

It seems that philosophers rarely make use of rigorous logic even though they stand to benefit from it immensely.

Philosophers invented rigorous logic. This one sure didn't present any, though.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#62

Post by dikaiosune »

humanrebar wrote: post #53
dikaiosune wrote: post #23

When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first principles. Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already have in your head, hold them as the truth, and wantonly criticize anyone or any system that slights those beliefs. Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s Turns out that living in a pluralistic, modern society makes it really hard to rea…

> I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus. I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus. That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color or sports team.

My takeaway was that OP genuinely believes there are moral absolutes that are not the subject of consensus, they just are. Consensus attempts to build something stable from a variety of (hopefully) evidenced opinions, but it's not necessarily linked to some objective, absolute reality. He's not criticizing a lack of moral consensus, he's saying that relying on consensus as opposed to absolutes encourages amoral behavior.

I would agree with the author that children shouldn't be only taught relativism, but I hope we can forgive a lack of nuance in 2nd-grade curricula. Having wiggle room and nuance in these conversations is part of how civilization has progressed, and that's stifled by the idea that all morality is derived from some semi-knowable perfect absolute reality.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#63

Post by icebraining »

jvm wrote: post #54

The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts. He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g., > If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? ...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions! He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agr…

Lots of people have claimed ungodly sources of moral objectivity/universalism (usually nature, or reason, or some such).

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#64

Post by yellowapple »

javert wrote: post #24
ikken wrote: post #17

The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…

I'm not defending the article, but you are wrong. Stealing from others is bad if it decreases your pleasure and it is good if it increases your pleasure. That is objective.

That's a big "if", though. For others, stealing might increase one's pleasure. This decrease v. increase of pleasure about something is what's called an "opinion".

It's not objective if it changes based on who you ask and how you observe it.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#65

Post by jackson1372 »

ikken wrote: post #17

The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…

The point of the article is not to prove that values are objective. Rather, the point is to undermine the fact/opinion distinction.

If moral sentiments were mere opinion, then there'd be no point to arguing over whether some action is right or wrong. When you tell me that you really like the taste of sushi, I don't argue with you - I just accept that that's your taste. But that we don't simply accept as 'taste' other's moral sentiments suggests that our own understanding of what is at stake is different.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#66

Post by throwawayaway »

ikken wrote: post #17

The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too. This is the problem I have with many p…

Yes I am guilty of moral relativism, that I am not alone in that is interesting, so the article is one I find interesting. But it is flawed, your example is apt and that's not the only one:

Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”

Him: “It’s a fact.”

Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”

Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”

Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

...

I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted.

With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#67

Post by peteretep »

cjbprime wrote: post #46
peteretep wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you could show that certain morals were genetic and present in the majority, rather than learned, you'd have a basis for calling those moral facts for humans.

I think you would quickly have to conclude that rape, murder, sexism and racism are genetic facts about humans; they're shared with the other animals we're descended from, and they've been part of our history forever. I think if we held this definition, morality would not be very useful as a concept. Here's an old debate between (professor) Peter Singer and (judge) Richard Posner, where Posner holds this claim that m…

Ability to perform an action doesn't impact on its morality.

I would guess that empathy is genetic, and so a moral fact might be that causing undeserved pain to someone with whom you can empathise with is wrong. "Undeserved" of course is wooly at the point of expression.

Fear of death I'd guess to also be genetic, so another moral fact might be that suicide outside of an overriding other moral purpose being wrong might constitute "moral fact", although like the last example, its expression is clouded by other non-fact morals that come in to play.

Incest taboo seems to be genetically expressed too, so you can probably include that.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#68

Post by jvm »

icebraining wrote: post #63
jvm wrote: post #54

The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts. He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g., > If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? ...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions! He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agr…

Lots of people have claimed ungodly sources of moral objectivity/universalism (usually nature, or reason, or some such).

Okay but that's still, like, just their opinion man :-)

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#69

Post by tormeh »

paulgerhardt wrote: post #12

"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable." REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DU…

Yeah, whenever I think too much about why we're here I discover that it's best not to think too much about it.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#70

Post by icebraining »

EarthLaunch wrote: post #58

Moral 'facts' require a universal standard of morality. It's hard to come up with a truly universal standard. The best answer I've seen is: Man's life. "Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." -Ayn Rand [1] [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

That doesn't set a standard, it just moves the discussion to "what is proper to the life a rational being", which is still completely subjective.
Post reply on HN