Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Meta Ethical Relativism and epistemological..

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 10:46:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is meta ethical moral relativism synonymous with epistemological Relativism?

And is the latter self-evidently absurd?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 10:58:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:54:31 AM, belle wrote:
no and yes.

Then without meaning to sound like a complete jerk... how do you justify your vote in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I don't normally pursue such things, just curious. I freely admit I am not educated in philosophy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:03:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Agree with Belle.

I'll read this debate later, but obviously the debate isn't to be judged on whether, in fact, MR=ER but how well it was argued. Close debates are always tough.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:03:01 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Agree with Belle.

I'll read this debate later, but obviously the debate isn't to be judged on whether, in fact, MR=ER but how well it was argued. Close debates are always tough.

No actually it is to be judged exactly on that, because that is what the argument boiled down.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:09:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:06:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:03:01 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Agree with Belle.

I'll read this debate later, but obviously the debate isn't to be judged on whether, in fact, MR=ER but how well it was argued. Close debates are always tough.

No actually it is to be judged exactly on that, because that is what the argument boiled down.

I'll read the debate. However, if he defended his straw man better than you could respond I'll have to give the points to him. As a judge I'm simply voting for who argued better even if one view seems a little unkosher.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:16:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The thing about philosophy is that a lot of positions can be argued or put forth, but evaluating these positions via their logical implications or corollaries seems to be a major method for evaluation. This is due to the fact that many philosophical statements are built on certain assumptions that generally extend outside the proposition.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:18:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:09:15 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:06:18 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:03:01 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Agree with Belle.

I'll read this debate later, but obviously the debate isn't to be judged on whether, in fact, MR=ER but how well it was argued. Close debates are always tough.

No actually it is to be judged exactly on that, because that is what the argument boiled down.

I'll read the debate. However, if he defended his straw man better than you could respond I'll have to give the points to him. As a judge I'm simply voting for who argued better even if one view seems a little unkosher.

He didn't. He gave me nothing to refute (he had the BoP).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:46:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Is meta ethical moral relativism synonymous with epistemological Relativism?

And is the latter self-evidently absurd?

no, and... no :/

certainly Existant things Exist.. but how you come to knowledge of what exists is dependent upon the manner of thinking/understanding which your nature furnishes you... and so any knowledge you might have remains dependent upon that nature.. and Cannot be said to reach to the absolute.. and Others, of dissimilar nature, may see/understand in a wholly different manner and have just as much claim to "truth" as do you.

Our "knowledge" is compiled within a natural Framework/Perspective... this Framework itself seems due to our nature.. and cannot be said to Absolutely lay claim to the nature of existence.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 11:49:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to revise my stance a little. It's not synonymous with complete epistemic relativism ("All knowledge is relative.") The argument can be made, as I have before, that moral relativism entails "broader doubts" or a greater degree of epistemic relativism. I know I've made this argument against Cody_Franklin and mattrodstrom and I'll check it out in this debate over the next few days.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 12:41:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:46:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Is meta ethical moral relativism synonymous with epistemological Relativism?

And is the latter self-evidently absurd?

I would say yes simply because both assert that nothing can be objectively true or false (right/wrong) it is dependent on an individual and how that individual sees the situation.

and I would also say yes to a degree
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 11:49:10 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know I've made this argument against Cody_Franklin and mattrodstrom

you claimed it sure.. you never made any argument though.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 8:58:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 7:55:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/25/2011 11:49:10 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know I've made this argument against Cody_Franklin and mattrodstrom

you claimed it sure.. you never made any argument though.

You keep thinking that.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 3:54:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:58:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:54:31 AM, belle wrote:
no and yes.

Then without meaning to sound like a complete jerk... how do you justify your vote in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I don't normally pursue such things, just curious. I freely admit I am not educated in philosophy.

the way that you defended moral relativism is what brought on the charge of epistemological relativism. since you said, essentially, the truth of a moral proposition depends on our subjective experience since all statements are subjective. when theskeptic pointed that out you changed your position to an emotivist stance, which is NOT meta-ethical moral relativism at all. its different yet again.

meta-ethical relativism claims that its true for joe that "murder is wrong" but its not true for bob, because of some difference in their beliefs. emotivism claims that when people make moral utterances, they are not the kinds of statements that have truth values... they are simply expressions of taste (which is i think what you believe since thats what you said outright in the debate). with relativism moral claims are still true or false... that truth or falsity just differs between individuals or cultures. with emotivism, truth or falsity has nothing to do with it.

and in any case, even if MMR and ER are not the same, its possible that a defense of MMR requires appeal to ER. that was certainly the case in your argument, due to the way you structured it. i'm not an expert on MMR so i don't know exactly what other arguments have been put forth in its favor, but i do know that ER as generally formulated is almost completely indefensible.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 7:14:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/26/2011 3:54:28 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:58:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:54:31 AM, belle wrote:
no and yes.

Then without meaning to sound like a complete jerk... how do you justify your vote in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I don't normally pursue such things, just curious. I freely admit I am not educated in philosophy.

the way that you defended moral relativism is what brought on the charge of epistemological relativism. since you said, essentially, the truth of a moral proposition depends on our subjective experience since all statements are subjective. when theskeptic pointed that out you changed your position to an emotivist stance, which is NOT meta-ethical moral relativism at all. its different yet again.

I am sure this was challenged as a strawman/irrelevancy? I think too much credence was place on what TS said I said, as opposed to what transpired.

meta-ethical relativism claims that its true for joe that "murder is wrong" but its not true for bob, because of some difference in their beliefs. emotivism claims that when people make moral utterances, they are not the kinds of statements that have truth values... they are simply expressions of taste (which is i think what you believe since thats what you said outright in the debate).

As described those two positions are not mutually exclusive.

with relativism moral claims are still true or false... that truth or falsity just differs between individuals or cultures. with emotivism, truth or falsity has nothing to do with it.

Hence my reference to subjective truths.

Oh well nevermind.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 10:49:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 7:14:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hence my reference to subjective truths.

Oh well nevermind.

i don't think you're getting it.

take the statement "i like cake". is it true? false? assuming that i actually do like cake it is descriptively true to say that "belle likes cake". but is that really what i am saying when i say "i like cake"? or am i saying, essentially "yay cake"? most would argue the latter and that it is not "true for me" that cake is good and true for someone else who doesn't like cake that cake is bad. it is just that we have different feelings towards cake. just like everyone has different feelings towards different actions. and if you're going to call morality a preference like liking cake or not, then truth and falsity, and therefore relativism, have nothing to do with it. think about it... can a preference be true? it makes no sense...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 7:33:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 10:49:25 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:14:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hence my reference to subjective truths.

Oh well nevermind.

i don't think you're getting it.

No I am, the problem is that the IT that has been built up is utterly irrelevant.


take the statement "i like cake". is it true? false? assuming that i actually do like cake it is descriptively true to say that "belle likes cake". but is that really what i am saying when i say "i like cake"? or am i saying, essentially "yay cake"? most would argue the latter and that it is not "true for me" that cake is good and true for someone else who doesn't like cake that cake is bad. it is just that we have different feelings towards cake. just like everyone has different feelings towards different actions. and if you're going to call morality a preference like liking cake or not, then truth and falsity, and therefore relativism, have nothing to do with it. think about it... can a preference be true? it makes no sense...

Yea so what am I not getting? It seems as though the perception of the debate is solely based on TS, I was merely a sounding board. But anyway nevermind.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 7:38:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 7:33:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yea so what am I not getting? It seems as though the perception of the debate is solely based on TS, I was merely a sounding board. But anyway nevermind.

based on what you've actually said, repeatedly, you're not getting that those two things are different. in the debate you did not seem to admit that they were. or maybe you're just stubborn. either way, the debate was months ago... you can go on ahead and get over yourself now :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 8:08:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 7:38:52 AM, belle wrote:
At 8/28/2011 7:33:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yea so what am I not getting? It seems as though the perception of the debate is solely based on TS, I was merely a sounding board. But anyway nevermind.

based on what you've actually said, repeatedly, you're not getting that those two things are different.

Direct quote?

in the debate you did not seem to admit that they were. or maybe you're just stubborn. either way, the debate was months ago... you can go on ahead and get over yourself now :P

Haha... seriously I am not even being stubborn, a stubborn person refuses to change their mind when presented with proof to the contrary. A normal person does not change their mind when a secret debate that they were not privy to is mysteriously referenced. I am not actually that bothered really!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:29:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 8:08:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Direct quote?

"MMR argues that moral values are relative, I therefore take that to mean that morality is subjective. Therefore moral statements are subjectively true or false. You will notice if you check former rounds that I have constantly made the objective/subjective distinction. Emotivism acknowledges that moral statements are representative of the speakers feelings, and are not objectively true. They are still subjectively true"

"My opponent also should now indicate how the position of emotivism fails is mutually exclusive with MMR."

"In addition MMR only claims relative or subjective truths within the framework of personal and cultural value systems. Emotional moral judgements can be deemed true or false within the framework of the persons moral system. The divding line between the two topics is very thin. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive positions."

"My opponent attempts to change the subject further by claiming I am arguing for emotivism.... He has also failed to demonstrate that this positions are mutually exclsuive."

4, all from the debate that you yourself posted, where you repeatedly claim that emotivism and MMR are not mutually exclusive, or where you claim that there is room in an emotivist framework for moral propositions to have truth values.

Haha... seriously I am not even being stubborn, a stubborn person refuses to change their mind when presented with proof to the contrary. A normal person does not change their mind when a secret debate that they were not privy to is mysteriously referenced. I am not actually that bothered really!

you mean the debate that you posted a link to just a few days ago? and participated in months ago? and are still making the same tired arguments about while still completely missing the point in regards to other people's criticisms? yeah i can tell you don't care at all. lol.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2011 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 10:29:43 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/28/2011 8:08:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Direct quote?

"MMR argues that moral values are relative, I therefore take that to mean that morality is subjective. Therefore moral statements are subjectively true or false. You will notice if you check former rounds that I have constantly made the objective/subjective distinction. Emotivism acknowledges that moral statements are representative of the speakers feelings, and are not objectively true. They are still subjectively true"

"My opponent also should now indicate how the position of emotivism fails is mutually exclusive with MMR."

"In addition MMR only claims relative or subjective truths within the framework of personal and cultural value systems. Emotional moral judgements can be deemed true or false within the framework of the persons moral system. The divding line between the two topics is very thin. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive positions."

"My opponent attempts to change the subject further by claiming I am arguing for emotivism.... He has also failed to demonstrate that this positions are mutually exclsuive."

4, all from the debate that you yourself posted, where you repeatedly claim that emotivism and MMR are not mutually exclusive, or where you claim that there is room in an emotivist framework for moral propositions to have truth values.

Haha... seriously I am not even being stubborn, a stubborn person refuses to change their mind when presented with proof to the contrary. A normal person does not change their mind when a secret debate that they were not privy to is mysteriously referenced. I am not actually that bothered really!

you mean the debate that you posted a link to just a few days ago? and participated in months ago? and are still making the same tired arguments about while still completely missing the point in regards to other people's criticisms? yeah i can tell you don't care at all. lol.

I was not the one that raised the subject actually, this thread was a response. I can't be that bothered by a popularity contest now can I? Sufficiently bothered to mention it, not sufficiently bothered to lose any sleep about.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:47:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
hmm, go figure that my rare visit to DDO philosophy section brings me this thread. Nothing to say about it though - as usual belle does a good job of reporting :D.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:27:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:46:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Is meta ethical moral relativism synonymous with epistemological Relativism?

And is the latter self-evidently absurd?

This confuses the distinction between positive and normative statements (is and oughts).

MMR says that normative statements have no truth value and/or are incoherent. ER says that positive and normative statements do not have definitive truth values.

ER -> MMR