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

111–120 of 165 posts

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

#111

Post by throwawayaway »

jackson1372 wrote: post #108
throwawayaway wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

egoism sounds about right. i wonder are they mutually exclusive. reading wikipedia, i'd disagree with normative moral relativism and agree with meta-ethical/descriptive moral relativism. just because i'm an egoist doesn't mean i think everyone else is.

> and yet similar judgments like "tax-evasion is wrong" aren't treated as mere opinions when they grow up.

I don't see anything like that written in the article, where did you take that from?

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

#112

Post by jackson1372 »

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…

> "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."

I think this is all the author wants to prove. We, as a society, seem to be of two minds about this. He's not trying to prove that moral facts exist.

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

#113

Post by icebraining »

jackson1372 wrote: post #112
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…

> "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." I think this is all the author wants to prove. We, as a society, seem to be of two minds about this. He's not trying to prove that moral facts exist.

May be, but I think you're reading a more interesting article than it's actually there :)

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

#114

Post by emsy »

Crito wrote: post #47
emsy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you just probably never thought about what "knowing" actually means. Put simply, he wasn't there when Washington was President so he can only believe that historical resources are telling the truth.

You have just successfully banished the word by stripping it of any legitimate usage. Since it was quite a useful word that will undoubtedly be missed, why not being it back with a simple redefinition. We could redefine it as "close enough to true that only a philosopher would object" . Then we could continue to use the word, despite the obnoxious objections of philosophers. Epistemology may be all very neat and inte…

Of course I'm not nitpicking on every usage of the word, but I think it's everyone should at some point think about what knowing and reality actually is. It doesn't matter most of the time, but there are moments in history when someone wants to tell you that 2+2=5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

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

#115

Post by marbletiles »

icebraining wrote: post #106
marbletiles wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 question of behaviour.

Without consensus on standards of behaviour, communities and societies fall apart. People value communities and societies. Therefore people value being able to debate about morality.

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

#116

Post by jgallag8 »

throwawayaway wrote: post #66
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 i…

What does it mean for something to be 'a higher form of truth'? More valuable, according to some appropriate standard? More useful, according to some appropriate standard?

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

#117

Post by throwawayaway »

marbletiles wrote: post #115
icebraining wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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

#118

Post by huxley »

marbletiles wrote: post #115
icebraining wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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

#119

Post by throwawayaway »

jgallag8 wrote: post #116
throwawayaway wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

What does it mean for something to be 'a higher form of truth'? More valuable, according to some appropriate standard? More useful, according to some appropriate standard?

I mean it's a statement with a lower "margin of error". More testable.

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

#120

Post by icebraining »

marbletiles wrote: post #115
icebraining wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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, merely to have enough people with a roughly similar pattern. The dissenters will just be made to comply by force.

Post reply on HN