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

101–110 of 165 posts

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

#101

Post by miguelrochefort »

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 author can be ignored. Now focus on my words.

There is no point debating without first accepting the existence of absolute, universal and objective moral truth. You can't claim that someone "is wrong" (in the objective sense) if "being wrong" is not something that can exist. When a subjectivist "debates", it can only be motivated by selfishness - never by truth.

Self-awareness is the only thing that matters. The system only exists to understand itself, as accurately as possible. That's what we also call "truth", and that's the most important thing. Really.

Truth is about convergence, as there exists only one truth. When a person lies, it increases entropy (that's not good). While there exists only one truth, there can exist infinitely many lies. You can't disprove truth, but you can disprove lies, if only through contradictions. Whenever a person lies, progress (proximity to truth) slows down. That's the definition of evil. Therefore, lying is objectively/universally/absolutely a bad thing.

It is not important whether a lie today could lead to a better outcome in the future. We can't accurately predict the future. We don't even know "when" the future is. It is therefore, impossible to evaluate whether something is good or not based on future events, as it can never be known.

This is at this point that you must realize that what matters is not the end, but the means. The means justifies the end, not the other way around. Failing to understand that hurts the universe.

Aim for efficiency. Aim for truth. You will find that these two things are just one. Only then will you be one with the universe.

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

#102

Post by icebraining »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #101
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 author can be ignored. Now focus on my words. There is no point debating without first accepting the existence of absolute, universal and objective moral truth. You can't claim that someone "is wrong" (in the objective sense) if "being wrong" is not something that can exist. When a subjectivist "debates", it can only be motivated by selfishness - never by truth. Self-awareness is the only thing that matters. The…

You just asserted a lot of stuff. You're not debating, merely preaching.

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

#103

Post by marbletiles »

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…

It's not the punishment that's relevant, it's the claim, or the ability to judge behaviour by a moral standard. You can judge behaviour even if you're too small and weak to enact punishment.

But if you're a moral relativist, you can't judge at all — you can't say "that killing was wrong, it was murder". The best you can say was "that killing was morally wrong by my standards, but might well have been acceptable by his, therefore the discussion can go no further".

Relativism reduces morality to little more than a preference, and makes it as impossible to reason or debate about morality as it is to debate about whether you should like your eggs sunny side up. Very few are really moral relativists; the logical consequences of believing in it are usually too much for people to stomach.

(This doesn't mean moral facts exist, though! There are more options available than just moral relativism or moral objectivism, not that the article bothers thinking about any of them)

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

#104

Post by EarthLaunch »

icebraining wrote: post #96
EarthLaunch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I didn't just assert that, it was based on the preceding logic. "Why not" is answered by what I proposed in my previous comment.

Not up for debating it with you further. With a name like icebraining, have you ever wondered if you're the baddy? [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

marbletiles wrote: post #103
icebraining wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not the punishment that's relevant, it's the claim, or the ability to judge behaviour by a moral standard. You can judge behaviour even if you're too small and weak to enact punishment. But if you're a moral relativist, you can't judge at all — you can't say "that killing was wrong, it was murder". The best you can say was "that killing was morally wrong by my standards, but might well have been acceptable by hi…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by icebraining »

marbletiles wrote: post #103
icebraining wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not the punishment that's relevant, it's the claim, or the ability to judge behaviour by a moral standard. You can judge behaviour even if you're too small and weak to enact punishment. But if you're a moral relativist, you can't judge at all — you can't say "that killing was wrong, it was murder". The best you can say was "that killing was morally wrong by my standards, but might well have been acceptable by hi…

Sure you can judge - based on your own, subjective morality. "To me, that killing was wrong, it was murder". All you need is to acknowledge that other people will judge it differently, and that their judgment is just as objectively valid. And you can still judged them for judging so!

And it doesn't make it impossible to debate about morality - merely futile.

I don't see what's so difficult to accept in this, frankly.

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

#107

Post by jackson1372 »

Crito wrote: post #99
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…

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 widow…

Moral relativism is incompatible with judgements that other's moral judgements are wrong. You can judge someone else's views as wrong while still tolerating them.

One other things:

> "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."

Relativism is not egoism.

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

#108

Post by jackson1372 »

throwawayaway wrote: post #89
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…

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 relativ…

> "My only claim extends as far as I can act or influence others to act to serve my own needs and wants."

That egoism, not moral relativism.

I took it that the author was making the following point about our society: we teach them in school that things like "cheating is wrong" is mere opinion, and yet similar judgments like "tax-evasion is wrong" aren't treated as mere opinions when they grow up.

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

#109

Post by huxley »

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…

We do argue that all the time, we just call killing something other than murder if we don't want to impose a negative judgement on it.

You don't have to be a moral relativist to see that the foundations of moral facts are often built on sand.

The author blustered about how awful his strawman was, played semantic games on his son, and proved nothing at all.

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

#110

Post by icebraining »

jackson1372 wrote: post #107
Crito wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 widow…

Moral relativism is incompatible with judgements that other's moral judgements are wrong. You can judge someone else's views as wrong while still tolerating them. One other things: > "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." Relativism is not egoism.

Moral relativism is incompatible with judgements that other's moral judgements are wrong.

How so, as long as you accept that those meta-judgements are still subjective?

Post reply on HN