Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example?
- Efficiency is not just the means; it's the actual end. - The means justify the end. - Truth is all that matters. Therefore, to lie is morally bad.
[deleted]
Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
121–130 of 165 posts
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see what's so difficult to accept in this, frankly. Because you're stopping once you reach the conclusion you like and not seeing where it leads. Debating about morality is a pre-requisite for, for example, coming to agreement on a community standard on a moral question of behaviour. And if it's futile to debate about morality, then of course it's futile to try to define a community standard on a moral ques…
There might be a confusion between a prescriptive and a descriptive stance of moral relativism. You can be a moral relativist and take a pragmatic position that traditions or societal consensus are worth having without disappearing in a puff of logic.
> You can be a moral relativist and take a pragmatic position that traditions or societal consensus are worth having without disappearing in a puff of logic.
Not really, because if you believe the relativism you must believe that moral consensus can't be reached.
What you are saying is very close to "You can be a climate change denier and take the pragmatic position that we need to change our behaviour to stop the earth heating up"
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#123When 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.
I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth, which is what I am sure you meant (unalienable means unable to be taken away). It's something I feel very strongly to be true, but it's something we have collectively agreed upon as a society. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way.
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see what's so difficult to accept in this, frankly. Because you're stopping once you reach the conclusion you like and not seeing where it leads. Debating about morality is a pre-requisite for, for example, coming to agreement on a community standard on a moral question of behaviour. And if it's futile to debate about morality, then of course it's futile to try to define a community standard on a moral ques…
I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that. You can argue about and agree upon a standard of behavior without it being a moral standard. In fact, I'd argue that's exactly what most laws are. When the CA road laws say that drivers must keep a 3-foot buffer from cyclists, is that a moral rule? Now, it may be that you still need some moral axioms to build those standards upon, but you don't need to argue about them,…
> I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that.
Logic doesn't care if you agree or not, it just takes you to the conclusion anyway. And if that reveals you to have an incoherent position, so be it.
Also, you're not going to get far trying to define away moral aspects. _Why_ was the cycle law enacted? Presumably to reduce cyclist deaths. Why reduce those? You get to a moral question incredibly quickly from the most arcane law.
And your thinking that you can find a majority with "roughly similar pattern" without any need for debate is effectively saying "a majority will agree on fundamental moral axioms" and now you're nowhere near relativism. You might as well have posited the article's "moral facts", at this point.
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mig…
It sounds like you're cherry-picking which moral instincts you believe to be genetic, ignoring the ones you don't approve of. Why include empathy but not racism?
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that. You can argue about and agree upon a standard of behavior without it being a moral standard. In fact, I'd argue that's exactly what most laws are. When the CA road laws say that drivers must keep a 3-foot buffer from cyclists, is that a moral rule? Now, it may be that you still need some moral axioms to build those standards upon, but you don't need to argue about them,…
> I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that. Logic doesn't care if you agree or not, it just takes you to the conclusion anyway. And if that reveals you to have an incoherent position, so be it. Also, you're not going to get far trying to define away moral aspects. _Why_ was the cycle law enacted? Presumably to reduce cyclist deaths. Why reduce those? You get to a moral question incredibly quickly from the most…
If I roll five dice, and three of them hit on 3, does that mean that 3 is some special number?
Moral relativism doesn't imply that everyone's subjective moral are all and always incompatible with each other. As people's subjective moralities change this way and the other, clusters are bound to happen - those are the "majorities".
What I deny is that any of those are the one objective morality. It's just the latest sample from the RNG. Tommorrow will bring new ones.
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that. Logic doesn't care if you agree or not, it just takes you to the conclusion anyway. And if that reveals you to have an incoherent position, so be it. Also, you're not going to get far trying to define away moral aspects. _Why_ was the cycle law enacted? Presumably to reduce cyclist deaths. Why reduce those? You get to a moral question incredibly quickly from the most…
If I roll five dice, and three of them hit on 3, does that mean that 3 is some special number? Moral relativism doesn't imply that everyone's subjective moral are all and always incompatible with each other. As people's subjective moralities change this way and the other, clusters are bound to happen - those are the "majorities". What I deny is that any of those are the one objective morality. It's just the latest sa…
Again, it's not binary: you don't have to accept a moral objectivism just because you deny relativism.
I too deny that any of the axioms are the one objective morality (although the clusters of moral belief over time are nothing like you'd get from a RNG, and tomorrow broadly speaking does not bring new ones, but that's a digression).
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see what's so difficult to accept in this, frankly. Because you're stopping once you reach the conclusion you like and not seeing where it leads. Debating about morality is a pre-requisite for, for example, coming to agreement on a community standard on a moral question of behaviour. And if it's futile to debate about morality, then of course it's futile to try to define a community standard on a moral ques…
Interesting comment. I don't care where it leads, it's a personal thing. I don't feel the need to hold a position that applies to everyone. Taking it to something I understand better, like coding standards. I could care less what people decide the rules are, they seem completely arbitrary to me. I'm happy to go with what's gone before, and if people want to fight about new ones I'll leave them to it.
But you accept that people can fight and decide what the rules are? That you can have a meaningful discussion about which coding standard is the best, and why, and reach a conclusion you all agree on?
Because metaethical moral relativism wouldn't accept that. It says you might as well have a discussion about which colour is the best and try to reach a conclusion everyone agrees on.
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I roll five dice, and three of them hit on 3, does that mean that 3 is some special number? Moral relativism doesn't imply that everyone's subjective moral are all and always incompatible with each other. As people's subjective moralities change this way and the other, clusters are bound to happen - those are the "majorities". What I deny is that any of those are the one objective morality. It's just the latest sa…
Again, it's not binary: you don't have to accept a moral objectivism just because you deny relativism. I too deny that any of the axioms are the one objective morality (although the clusters of moral belief over time are nothing like you'd get from a RNG, and tomorrow broadly speaking does not bring new ones, but that's a digression).
I'm not saying it's binary; I just don't see in what way is my position not relativist.
Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, it's not binary: you don't have to accept a moral objectivism just because you deny relativism. I too deny that any of the axioms are the one objective morality (although the clusters of moral belief over time are nothing like you'd get from a RNG, and tomorrow broadly speaking does not bring new ones, but that's a digression).
I'm not saying it's binary; I just don't see in what way is my position not relativist.
Your position is relativist. And you asked why relativism was so hard to accept. Well, like I said way upthread, it's because if you take a relativist position to its conclusion, you generally end up somewhere people find hard to accept. (Or less politely, you end up somewhere dumb).
And this case is a perfect example. In this case, you've pretty quickly ended up having to argue that "laws can be/are built on moral axioms that come about by chance because random moral preference generation will result in coincidental clusters of agreement"
Which contradicts the observed facts of moral development, aside from all the other problems with it.
You could spend a lot of time trying to shore this up, or could just start again with a better foundation than moral relativism.