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

81–90 of 165 posts

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

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

sandworm wrote: post #36

The OP's mistake is to characterize all "moral facts" as simple binary answers. Cheating = bad. Killing = wrong. Those are too simple. That they are labeled opinion does not imply that there aren't any not-simple moral facts. "Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in control of such." I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact and most all would call it an accurate description of a state…

Your description of cheating presents facts, but there is nothing moral about them, except in that they are facts that explain why one group of people may prefer another group of people to accept something as a moral truth. (Which isn't what people generally mean when they asset the existence or nonexistence of "moral facts")

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

#82

Post by icebraining »

jackson1372 wrote: post #65
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…

People argue about tastes all the time. That tastes can't be argued over is what we tell ourselves, not what we actually do. Why else would we say "he has bad taste"?

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

#83

Post by jackson1372 »

throwawayaway wrote: post #73
jackson1372 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do accept other's moral sentiments as taste - maybe I'm some sort of sociopath? To hell with me. I see arguing over right and wrong as the mob enforcing its rule.

But the point is that, as a society, we don't treat moral sentiment as taste. For instance, when someone murders another person, we don't say: "Well, that person just likes murdering people. Who are we to disagree?!" Instead, we say they did something wrong, and we punish them.

If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist. And the point of the author is that, as a society, we seem to have an inconsistent position.

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

#84

Post by nsxwolf »

sandworm wrote: post #36

The OP's mistake is to characterize all "moral facts" as simple binary answers. Cheating = bad. Killing = wrong. Those are too simple. That they are labeled opinion does not imply that there aren't any not-simple moral facts. "Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in control of such." I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact and most all would call it an accurate description of a state…

"All men are created equal", if we're talking about what Thomas Jefferson wrote, means all human beings are equally deserving of rights and possess equal worth. It does not refer to objective criteria like intelligence, beauty, strength, etc.

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

#85

Post by jackson1372 »

icebraining wrote: post #82
jackson1372 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People argue about tastes all the time . That tastes can't be argued over is what we tell ourselves, not what we actually do. Why else would we say "he has bad taste "?

I use taste just because it's the most widely-accepted instance where subjectivism applies. But, certainly, a substantial minority will hold that for certain kinds of tastes, objectivism holds. If you think there are meaningful disagreements about taste, that makes you an objectivist. In which case, you already agree that there are facts about these kinds of things.

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

#86

Post by throwawayaway »

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.

FTA:

> Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame.

and then a link to this:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-mor...

I generally don't go for guilt by association, but can't believe he linked to this nonsense as some sort of support for his position.

"All men are created equal" is a moral consensus or opinion to me. Some are definitely more equal than others.

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

#88

Post by icebraining »

jackson1372 wrote: post #83
throwawayaway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do accept other's moral sentiments as taste - maybe I'm some sort of sociopath? To hell with me. I see arguing over right and wrong as the mob enforcing its rule.

But the point is that, as a society, we don't treat moral sentiment as taste. For instance, when someone murders another person, we don't say: "Well, that person just likes murdering people. Who are we to disagree?!" Instead, we say they did something wrong, and we punish them. If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist. And the point of the author…

If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist.

I disagree completely. The claim might simply be based on might. We as a society are more numerous and stronger than the occasional murderer, and therefore we'll act on our moral taste and punish him.

I agree that people don't actually think like that, but that doesn't prove that moral facts exists, just that many people think they do.

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

#89

Post by throwawayaway »

jackson1372 wrote: post #83
throwawayaway wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do accept other's moral sentiments as taste - maybe I'm some sort of sociopath? To hell with me. I see arguing over right and wrong as the mob enforcing its rule.

But the point is that, as a society, we don't treat moral sentiment as taste. For instance, when someone murders another person, we don't say: "Well, that person just likes murdering people. Who are we to disagree?!" Instead, we say they did something wrong, and we punish them. If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist. And the point of the author…

Well you picked a good one with murdering and the death penalty and so forth.

> If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist.

My only claim extends as far as I can act or influence others to act to serve my own needs and wants. Am I not a moral relativist?

I'm not sure that the author is commenting on society, but young people who are morally relativistic. I think he badly misrepresents their argument and doesn't really make one of his own.

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

#90

Post by javert »

icebraining wrote: post #31
javert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that objective? Why is something bad if it decreases your pleasure?

What other meaning could there possibly be for words like "bad" and "good"?
Post reply on HN