Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by throwawayaway » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:03 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #88

jackson1372 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Might" is pretty much how I think about it anyway.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:03 AM UTC

jackson1372 wrote: post #85

icebraining wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by javert » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:03 AM UTC

danpat wrote: post #51

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.

Does it go from objectively bad to objectively good if you feel differently about it on different days?

No.

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

#94

Post by marbletiles » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:04 AM UTC

reedlaw wrote: post #76

Kenji wrote: post #16

Not a single argument against moral relativism was put forth in this article. But they mentioned that there actually are moral facts ad nauseum without a reason. "Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t." Yes, yes, they are! Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists! I…

> I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true! What about the teaching discussed in the article about there being no moral facts? Should kids accept this proposition just because the education system repeats it over and over again? The teaching itself is…

> Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.

Yep. And then you can either get to the island of the cogito and find you can't get off, or you end up shrugging and going with Shaw's great line about how skepticism is "logically impeccable, but psychologically impossible".

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

#95

Post by javert » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:04 AM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #64

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.

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.

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

Sure it is. I'm not sure what you think the word "objective" should mean.

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

#96

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:06 AM UTC

EarthLaunch wrote: post #80

icebraining wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It progresses the discussion to there, by being a first principle of morality. From there, with a definition of rationality, "what is proper to the life a rational being" can be answered. For example, death is not proper to the life a rational being. From that follows certain things to avoid. Using this logic, those things would be morally wrong.

For example, death is not proper to the life a rational being.

Why not?

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

#97

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:06 AM UTC

lerpa wrote: post #79

icebraining wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, facts are facts even if no one can prove it. It's just that if you can't prove it, you can't know if a certain claim (like "the sun rose today") is actually a fact or not.

I'm having trouble with this. Can you prove that what you said is a fact?

Nope.

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

#98

Post by throwawayaway » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:08 AM UTC

flipstewart wrote: post #75

pistle wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite it being ad-hominem, I'll let it play because it helped stop my eyes from continuing to roll every time I replayed his arguments.

That was my only goal.

You'll love the article he linked to:

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

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

#99

Post by Crito » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:08 AM UTC

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…

Moral relativism is not incompatible with not tolerating practices which you personally disagree with. You may simultaneously believe that morality is relative, and not have any particular regard for other systems of morality. You may enforce your system of morality on others simply because you can and because your morality, which you recognize as relative, permits such enforcement.

> "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Sir Charles James Napier may not have earnestly bought into cultural relativism, but the sentiment he expresses is not inherently incompatible with it.

You don't need to believe that your system is "correct" in some sort of universal way. You merely need to believe that your system will be best for your personal interests.

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

#100

Post by icebraining » Sat, Mar 14, 2015, 1:09 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #90

icebraining wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Really? Self-sacrifice and penance are almost the basis of one the most popular moral theories in the world. Just go ask the closest Christian you might have.