Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The offensive against Moral Subjectivism

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:18:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The offensive against Moral Subjectivism 1.0

I have mentioned before, I don't think Moral Subjectivist really have thought out seriousness of their claims. Nor do I really belief people are really Moral subjectivist, they just haven't been exposed the seriousness and actuality of their claims. They just need to be pushed to the fence.
I will begin that offensive now!

Do you realize as a Moral subjectivist you are claiming that it is okay to run around and kill and murder innocent people, as long as it is considered good to them!??
E.g. That is terrorism is okay, as long as they attackers feel it's in their good Faith
.
So 9/11 is not more good than bad as long as people have different opinions about it. Really!!!?????

That is you may be murdered right now by someone who feel to kill you is good for them as a to use you washroom, is as good as it bad. If it's in their opinion, Really !!!?????

Do you realize that as long as People have opposite differing opinion on what is good and bad, Moral subjectivity is similar to Moral Nihilism aka there are not really Morals at all.

Bang!! An atomic bomb as hit the US. It's okay the Bomber Had apposing opinions. So it was a neutral act. Really!!???

The Fool says Lets real, moraly real.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:23:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A major problem of subjectivism is that it's become too popular through post-modernism that we don't realize how much it flat out doesn't make sense.

Logical contradiction:
That is if you have a subjective moral believe and someone has the opposite then you are conceding that (A&~A) makes sense as a part moral system. Remember these believes are in the same Objective Universe, so follows by law of non-contradiction that Moral Subjectivity is complete Nonsense.

Is that really the squad you want to be rolling with!!!!????

The Fool say, if you are rational you are certainly not a moral subjectivist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:25:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is Moral Subjectivism not rational? I mean, I understand that you are going to use 9/11 and other cases to claim that those are permissible under a system of Moral Subjectivism, but that does not prove that morality inherently has to exist.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:40:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The wave of post-modernist subjectivism has also effect morality in a most harmful way.

Verse the justification from personal subjectivity.

A Subjectivist: Morals are subjective because the value is exclusive to each person

The Fool: If you taking a walk through the meadow, and you happen to see a bunny that day, and nobody else, sees that bunny that day, is that a personal(exclusive) experience.

A Subjectivist: Yes it exclusive but it was an empirical observation.

The Fool: Correct me if I am wrong but does not empirical observation simply an experience or observation.

A Subjectivist: yes, it does.

The Fool: Well, subjectivist I would attest and hope you do as well that of all thing you experience it is definitely the case that we experience our thoughts, ideas and emotions.

A Subjectivist: well of course we do.

The Fool: But subjectivist if they are experiences are they not just as true or real or objective as the bunny in the meadow or as I am experiencing speaking with you right not.

A Subjectivist: Yes. By god you are right.

The Fool: and if morals are of that nature should we not too consider them as real or as objective as the bunny.

A Subjectivist: Yes, yes, by God,, I have been Fooled!! <(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:42:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:40:35 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The wave of post-modernist subjectivism has also effect morality in a most harmful way.


Verse the justification from personal subjectivity.

A Subjectivist: Morals are subjective because the value is exclusive to each person

The Fool: If you taking a walk through the meadow, and you happen to see a bunny that day, and nobody else, sees that bunny that day, is that a personal(exclusive) experience.

A Subjectivist: Yes it exclusive but it was an empirical observation.

The Fool: Correct me if I am wrong but does not empirical observation simply an experience or observation.

A Subjectivist: yes, it does.

The Fool: Well, subjectivist I would attest and hope you do as well that of all thing you experience it is definitely the case that we experience our thoughts, ideas and emotions.

A Subjectivist: well of course we do.

The Fool: But subjectivist if they are experiences are they not just as true or real or objective as the bunny in the meadow or as I am experiencing speaking with you right not.

A Subjectivist: Yes. By god you are right.

The Fool: and if morals are of that nature should we not too consider them as real or as objective as the bunny.

A Subjectivist: Yes, yes, by God,, I have been Fooled!! <(8D)

There is a difference between empirical observations and personal values . . . This is a false analogy.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:45:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:25:09 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is Moral Subjectivism not rational? I mean, I understand that you are going to use 9/11 and other cases to claim that those are permissible under a system of Moral Subjectivism, but that does not prove that morality inherently has to exist.

The Fool: it is arguement againt A moral subjective system making anysense. I am saying if you accept a morally subjective system then logically you also accept the other problems as permissable. The question is do you really accept that?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:45:45 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:25:09 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is Moral Subjectivism not rational? I mean, I understand that you are going to use 9/11 and other cases to claim that those are permissible under a system of Moral Subjectivism, but that does not prove that morality inherently has to exist.

The Fool: it is arguement againt A moral subjective system making anysense. I am saying if you accept a morally subjective system then logically you also accept the other problems as permissable. The question is do you really accept that?

Do I personally accept this? No, based on my personal moral system. Do other people accept these as permissible? Probably.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:42:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:40:35 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:


There is a difference between empirical observations and personal values . . . This is a false analogy.

The Fool: Its not a false analogy, I am directly refuting the whole concept personal values having any really difference. Prove to me what part is false. That is the challlenge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:51:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:47:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:


The Fool: it is arguement againt A moral subjective system making anysense. I am saying if you accept a morally subjective system then logically you also accept the other problems as permissable. The question is do you really accept that?

Do I personally accept this? No, based on my personal moral system. Do other people accept these as permissible? Probably.

The Fool: Right but a personal moral system is a subjectivist moral system. Changing the word from subjective to personal doesn't can't help you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 10:53:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:51:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:47:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:


The Fool: it is arguement againt A moral subjective system making anysense. I am saying if you accept a morally subjective system then logically you also accept the other problems as permissable. The question is do you really accept that?

Do I personally accept this? No, based on my personal moral system. Do other people accept these as permissible? Probably.

The Fool: Right but a personal moral system is a subjectivist moral system. Changing the word from subjective to personal doesn't can't help you.

Are you asking what basis we can use for laws? We just have to promote a system that protects as many people as possible. This is based on self-interest, and not a system of morality, however.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:02:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:53:55 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:51:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:47:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:


The Fool: it is arguement againt A moral subjective system making anysense. I am saying if you accept a morally subjective system then logically you also accept the other problems as permissable. The question is do you really accept that?

Do I personally accept this? No, based on my personal moral system. Do other people accept these as permissible? Probably.

The Fool: Right but a personal moral system is a subjectivist moral system. Changing the word from subjective to personal doesn't can't help you.

Are you asking what basis we can use for laws? We just have to promote a system that protects as many people as possible. This is based on self-interest, and not a system of morality, however.

But you cannot be logically justified because by an subjective morality. What about the minority, that have diffent interest. You are sayiing that people with different ideas, will not be proctect. the world evolves from changes from the Norm. How will you protect that with moral subjectivism. Plus you have to account for the contracdiction. The majority may take up some new crazy murderist religion. Are you saying then we should still protect thier intrest? NOnsense!

You should check out my argument for the moral objectivist first.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:25:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool is right though.

Given moral subjectivism, morality becomes reduced to a personal opinion. It would be like asking someone what their favorite color is. There would be now way you could ever condemn another act as "moral" or "immoral" and maintain consistency in your worldview.

In a world without God, who's to say whose values are right and whose are wrong? There can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personal relative, subjective judgments. Think of what that means! It means it's impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can you praise generosity, self-sacrifice, and love as good. To kill someone or love someone is morally equivalent. Actions lose all moral dimension. In a universe without God, good and evil do not exist. There is only the bare, valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not sure why modern atheists are so blind to this. Even the great atheists philosopher Nietzsche was able to recognize this, along with perhaps Sartre and Camus. They at least were honest and consistent (for the most part) with their atheistic worldview.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 11:31:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 11:25:39 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
The Fool is right though.

Given moral subjectivism, morality becomes reduced to a personal opinion. It would be like asking someone what their favorite color is. There would be now way you could ever condemn another act as "moral" or "immoral" and maintain consistency in your worldview.

In a world without God, who's to say whose values are right and whose are wrong? There can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personal relative, subjective judgments. Think of what that means! It means it's impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can you praise generosity, self-sacrifice, and love as good. To kill someone or love someone is morally equivalent. Actions lose all moral dimension. In a universe without God, good and evil do not exist. There is only the bare, valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not sure why modern atheists are so blind to this. Even the great atheists philosopher Nietzsche was able to recognize this, along with perhaps Sartre and Camus. They at least were honest and consistent (for the most part) with their atheistic worldview.

God!!???? lol
whats god got to do got to do with it. What God but a second hand emotion. What God got;. ..

The Fool: Religious Moral can never be objective. Even if you by logical proof of God. You proving God is a cause. Or God is a explanation. Or God is a necessary being.

But that is the Word God, being replaced with other terms. That is nothing about a real God being proved. And it is definition nothing to do with a scripure or bible. That is there could never be a logicl link to information frmo the Bible because the certainty of the bible must be taken on faith. and faith is and always be Subjective.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:22:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:18:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The offensive against Moral Subjectivism 1.0

I have mentioned before, I don't think Moral Subjectivist really have thought out seriousness of their claims. Nor do I really belief people are really Moral subjectivist, they just haven't been exposed the seriousness and actuality of their claims. They just need to be pushed to the fence.
I will begin that offensive now!

Do you realize as a Moral subjectivist you are claiming that it is okay to run around and kill and murder innocent people, as long as it is considered good to them!??
E.g. That is terrorism is okay, as long as they attackers feel it's in their good Faith
.
So 9/11 is not more good than bad as long as people have different opinions about it. Really!!!?????

That is you may be murdered right now by someone who feel to kill you is good for them as a to use you washroom, is as good as it bad. If it's in their opinion, Really !!!?????

Do you realize that as long as People have opposite differing opinion on what is good and bad, Moral subjectivity is similar to Moral Nihilism aka there are not really Morals at all.

Bang!! An atomic bomb as hit the US. It's okay the Bomber Had apposing opinions. So it was a neutral act. Really!!???

The Fool says Lets real, moraly real.

You forgot that someone who is a moral subjectivist may still hold his own moral opinions, but does not presuppose he wields some philosophical cudgel by which to bludgeon any competing moral opinions.

Instead, a moral subjectivist understands that normative goals may only be accomplished through real world action instead of armchair theorizing.

Until objective morality has the ability to stop a rapist in his tracks, I'll take enforced personal subjective morality over armchair theorizing any day.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:22:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/8/2012 10:18:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The offensive against Moral Subjectivism 1.0

I have mentioned before, I don't think Moral Subjectivist really have thought out seriousness of their claims. Nor do I really belief people are really Moral subjectivist, they just haven't been exposed the seriousness and actuality of their claims. They just need to be pushed to the fence.
I will begin that offensive now!

Do you realize as a Moral subjectivist you are claiming that it is okay to run around and kill and murder innocent people, as long as it is considered good to them!??
E.g. That is terrorism is okay, as long as they attackers feel it's in their good Faith
.
So 9/11 is not more good than bad as long as people have different opinions about it. Really!!!?????

That is you may be murdered right now by someone who feel to kill you is good for them as a to use you washroom, is as good as it bad. If it's in their opinion, Really !!!?????

Do you realize that as long as People have opposite differing opinion on what is good and bad, Moral subjectivity is similar to Moral Nihilism aka there are not really Morals at all.

Bang!! An atomic bomb as hit the US. It's okay the Bomber Had apposing opinions. So it was a neutral act. Really!!???

The Fool says Lets real, moraly real.

You forgot that someone who is a moral subjectivist may still hold his own moral opinions, but does not presuppose he wields some philosophical cudgel by which to bludgeon any competing moral opinions.

Instead, a moral subjectivist understands that normative goals may only be accomplished through real world action instead of armchair theorizing.

Until objective morality has the ability to stop a rapist in his tracks, I'll take enforced personal subjective morality over armchair theorizing any day.

And I hope you have the common sense to recognize that societies can agree upon enforceable legal systems in order to achieve a goal like minimal harm without giving it some new metaphysical status.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:56:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wnope: You forgot that someone who is a moral subjectivist may still hold his own moral opinions,

The Fool: No that's exactly what I am arguing against, there would be not purpose of the thread,!!? I am curious to hear your actual defenses on those two arguments as well

Wnope: but does not presuppose he wields some philosophical cudgel by which to bludgeon any competing moral opinions.

The Fool: yes, moral subjectivity would that exactly, it is a philosophical claim just as well, even worse it's a claim not only about themself but a universal claim about all other minds that exist. To really be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism, claim of others are objective claim.

Wnope: Instead, a moral subjectivist understands that normative goals may only be accomplished through real world action instead of armchair theorizing.

The Fool: I don't think the subjectivist has any exclusivity, on that even worse, it would be Tyranny to claim moral subjectivism and then hold others who have other subjective opinion accountable to yours. So world action couldn't even get off the ground without contradict moral subjectivism

Moreover it is very problematic if you care about not marginalizes a minority thus not accounting for their protection through normative ethics. Secondly, we may say that Religious is the norm, how do you protect justify protection of the other groups. How are you accounting for these problems?

Wnope: Until objective morality has the ability to stop a rapist in his tracks, I'll take enforced personal subjective morality over armchair theorizing any day.

The Fool: There is nothing rational about that claim. until, you are able to defend your claim that its right you can't really claim morals at all now can you. The rapist is no better then you as long as they think it right.

Wnope: And I hope you have the common sense to recognize that societies can agree upon enforceable legal systems in order to achieve a goal like minimal harm without giving it some new metaphysical status.

The Fool: I hope you understand agreement is still subjective, and thus another society is just as right to nuke you if they feel you are not inline with their religion. Good luck with that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:15:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism?

Subjectivism (at least in my case) only applies to normative statements. I am just as capable as you are of evaluating descriptive sentences as having truth values.

A subjectivist can tentatively accept a normative presupposition AS LONG AS he recognizes that it is a presupposition with alternatives.

For instance, I might take as a presupposition that you ought to strive to live. However, I recognize that those who say "I ought not strive to live" are on just as solid a philosophical footing as I am.

Now, this may shock you, but the world happens to function in this way. Salaafist terrorists have their set of moral presuppositions. Vegan atheist republicans have another.

When a society wishes to function under a set of rules, they can follow Rawls' methodology of public interest groups deciding upon a common set of laws.

That's why a Catholic extremist can live next door a vegan atheist. Both of them are subject to the SAME laws even their objective morality is different.

The Constitution is not a set of objective morals. It's a compilation of public interests organized through a representative framework. Some of those interests VEHEMENTLY disagreed morally (like on whether black people count as HUMAN) but they still created a government.

So it is wrong to say that an inability to blindly point to a normative statement and say "TRUE!" means society loses its ability to function under enforceable laws. Otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have existed.

All that was needed was a set of conditionals which lead to agreed upon standards such as "if you want to minimize property theft, your laws ought to...if you want to maximize political autonomy of the people, you ought to..."

Disagreements are on the conditionals. It's not "who is right" it's "which goals do we share and how can we best accomplish them?"

Do you consider the application of the bill of rights to Americas is an act of tyranny? It was quite subjective and based on how a committee wrote up a series of propositions from over a dozen independently acting states.

If your views on morality were true, I don't see how basic groups, not to mention nations, could form at all without complete moral homogeneity.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:26:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:15:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
To be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism?

Subjectivism (at least in my case) only applies to normative statements. I am just as capable as you are of evaluating descriptive sentences as having truth values.

The Fool: exactly if you claim subjectivism all you can account for is yourself. To make a claim about anyone else is to make a claim about the objective world outside you.

A subjectivist can tentatively accept a normative presupposition AS LONG AS he recognizes that it is a presupposition with alternatives.

For instance, I might take as a presupposition that you ought to strive to live. However, I recognize that those who say "I ought not strive to live" are on just as solid a philosophical footing as I am.

Now, this may shock you, but the world happens to function in this way. Salaafist terrorists have their set of moral presuppositions. Vegan atheist republicans have another.

When a society wishes to function under a set of rules, they can follow Rawls' methodology of public interest groups deciding upon a common set of laws.

That's why a Catholic extremist can live next door a vegan atheist. Both of them are subject to the SAME laws even their objective morality is different.

The Constitution is not a set of objective morals. It's a compilation of public interests organized through a representative framework. Some of those interests VEHEMENTLY disagreed morally (like on whether black people count as HUMAN) but they still created a government.

So it is wrong to say that an inability to blindly point to a normative statement and say "TRUE!" means society loses its ability to function under enforceable laws. Otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have existed.

All that was needed was a set of conditionals which lead to agreed upon standards such as "if you want to minimize property theft, your laws ought to...if you want to maximize political autonomy of the people, you ought to..."

Disagreements are on the conditionals. It's not "who is right" it's "which goals do we share and how can we best accomplish them?"

Do you consider the application of the bill of rights to Americas is an act of tyranny? It was quite subjective and based on how a committee wrote up a series of propositions from over a dozen independently acting states.

If your views on morality were true, I don't see how basic groups, not to mention nations, could form at all without complete moral homogeneity.

The Fool: that doesn't even make sense man. Pls read first. Quote what you are refuting.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:39:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:26:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/8/2012 5:15:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
To be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism?

Subjectivism (at least in my case) only applies to normative statements. I am just as capable as you are of evaluating descriptive sentences as having truth values.

The Fool: exactly if you claim subjectivism all you can account for is yourself. To make a claim about anyone else is to make a claim about the objective world outside you.

A subjectivist can tentatively accept a normative presupposition AS LONG AS he recognizes that it is a presupposition with alternatives.

For instance, I might take as a presupposition that you ought to strive to live. However, I recognize that those who say "I ought not strive to live" are on just as solid a philosophical footing as I am.

Now, this may shock you, but the world happens to function in this way. Salaafist terrorists have their set of moral presuppositions. Vegan atheist republicans have another.

When a society wishes to function under a set of rules, they can follow Rawls' methodology of public interest groups deciding upon a common set of laws.

That's why a Catholic extremist can live next door a vegan atheist. Both of them are subject to the SAME laws even their objective morality is different.

The Constitution is not a set of objective morals. It's a compilation of public interests organized through a representative framework. Some of those interests VEHEMENTLY disagreed morally (like on whether black people count as HUMAN) but they still created a government.

So it is wrong to say that an inability to blindly point to a normative statement and say "TRUE!" means society loses its ability to function under enforceable laws. Otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have existed.

All that was needed was a set of conditionals which lead to agreed upon standards such as "if you want to minimize property theft, your laws ought to...if you want to maximize political autonomy of the people, you ought to..."

Disagreements are on the conditionals. It's not "who is right" it's "which goals do we share and how can we best accomplish them?"

Do you consider the application of the bill of rights to Americas is an act of tyranny? It was quite subjective and based on how a committee wrote up a series of propositions from over a dozen independently acting states.

If your views on morality were true, I don't see how basic groups, not to mention nations, could form at all without complete moral homogeneity.

The Fool: that doesn't even make sense man. Pls read first. Quote what you are refuting.

You still are a bit confused as to how this works.

Someone who believes in subjective morality might say "I believe rapists should die. I have no objective moral reason, it is a personal belief. I am going to go kill some rapists."

This person uses his subjective morality to influence the world around him. This doesn't make his morality objective.

The danger you point out is that someone might just as easily substitute "rapists" for "black people" or "jews."

That's why it is up to those who disagree with such actions to form social or legal mechanisms which can constrain that kind of behavior. Others' subjective beliefs may lead them to rebel against the legal mechanism itself.

If this is beginning to sound familiar, that's because it's how reality works.

In reality, nobody whips out philosophy books and argues over who has better metaphysical grounding. Every individual comes to table with a unique morality shaped in common by millions of years of mammalian evolution. Part of that evolution was gaining an ability to co-exist with others even when you individual beliefs conflict greatly.

In a nation of millions, every single person can have different moral beliefs while still co-existing as long as they agree upon certain conditionals. If they disagree with a conditional, they will find themselves in conflict with others.

One such conditional is: "to minimize property damage" or "to enhance individual autonomy." People can disagree on conditions like "maximizing the power of states over a federal government" and still agree to "minimizing property damage."

This, again, is a description of reality. The only role "objective morality" plays is that groups will occasionally scream WE ARE OBJECTIVELY RIGHT in order to justify something they would do even if they weren't.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:04:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please try and refute my argument in the thread. You can give me a person lesson about cognitive sceince in the private messages I am sure you have a lot of interesting undergrad things to say. <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:12:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fool: Please try and refute my argument in the thread.

Oh, you mean this:

The Fool: exactly if you claim subjectivism all you can account for is yourself. To make a claim about anyone else is to make a claim about the objective world outside you.

So I never responded? I never, for instance, said:

Wnope: Someone who believes in subjective morality might say "I believe rapists should die. I have no objective moral reason, it is a personal belief. I am going to go kill some rapists."

This person uses his subjective morality to influence the world around him. This doesn't make his morality objective.

The danger you point out is that someone might just as easily substitute "rapists" for "black people" or "jews."

That's why it is up to those who disagree with such actions to form social or legal mechanisms which can constrain that kind of behavior. Others' subjective beliefs may lead them to rebel against the legal mechanism itself....This, again, is a description of reality. The only role "objective morality" plays is that groups will occasionally scream WE ARE OBJECTIVELY RIGHT in order to justify something they would do even if they weren't.

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This, again, is a description of reality. The only role "objective morality" plays is that groups will occasionally scream WE ARE OBJECTIVELY RIGHT in order to justify something they would do even if they weren't.

The Fool: No, objectivity is that what exist, regardless of your thought about it. For example. You exist regardless of what I think about it. And even your emotions exist objectivly regardless if I or anybody thinks of it. Just because no one can see something directly doesn't mean you can claim truth or falsenss on anything. You only special access prevlige is that you can be wrong about what you are experiencing. Or how you are feeling, or what you believe. That doesn't give moral powers. I know what you are saying and its based on niave empirism, what is in your mind has no, True Or false value.. and I am rejecting that and saying No kidding because its true. Scientist have muddle your imagination, ideas you create with the rest of you mind. that era is over.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:17:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:14:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
This, again, is a description of reality. The only role "objective morality" plays is that groups will occasionally scream WE ARE OBJECTIVELY RIGHT in order to justify something they would do even if they weren't.

The Fool: No, objectivity is that what exist, regardless of your thought about it. For example. You exist regardless of what I think about it. And even your emotions exist objectivly regardless if I or anybody thinks of it. Just because no one can see something directly doesn't mean you can claim truth or falsenss on anything. You only special access prevlige is that you can't be wrong about what you are experiencing. Or how you are feeling, or what you believe. That doesn't give moral powers. I know what you are saying and its based on niave empirism, what is in your mind has no, True Or false value.. and I am rejecting that and saying No kidding because its true. Scientist have muddle your imagination, ideas you create with the rest of you mind. that era is over.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
so there was this?

Wnope: You forgot that someone who is a moral subjectivist may still hold his own moral opinions,

The Fool: No that's exactly what I am arguing against, there would be not purpose of the thread,!!? I am curious to hear your actual defenses on those two arguments as well

Wnope: but does not presuppose he wields some philosophical cudgel by which to bludgeon any competing moral opinions.

The Fool: yes, moral subjectivity would that exactly, it is a philosophical claim just as well, even worse it's a claim not only about themself but a universal claim about all other minds that exist. To really be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism, claim of others are objective claim.

Wnope: Instead, a moral subjectivist understands that normative goals may only be accomplished through real world action instead of armchair theorizing.

The Fool: I don't think the subjectivist has any exclusivity, on that even worse, it would be Tyranny to claim moral subjectivism and then hold others who have other subjective opinion accountable to yours. So world action couldn't even get off the ground without contradict moral subjectivism

Moreover it is very problematic if you care about not marginalizes a minority thus not accounting for their protection through normative ethics. Secondly, we may say that Religious is the norm, how do you protect justify protection of the other groups. How are you accounting for these problems?

Wnope: Until objective morality has the ability to stop a rapist in his tracks, I'll take enforced personal subjective morality over armchair theorizing any day.

The Fool: There is nothing rational about that claim. until, you are able to defend your claim that its right you can't really claim morals at all now can you. The rapist is no better then you as long as they think it right.

Wnope: And I hope you have the common sense to recognize that societies can agree upon enforceable legal systems in order to achieve a goal like minimal harm without giving it some new metaphysical status.

The Fool: I hope you understand agreement is still subjective, and thus another society is just as right to nuke you if they feel you are not inline with their religion. Good luck with that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Wnope: but does not presuppose he wields some philosophical cudgel by which to bludgeon any competing moral opinions.

The Fool: yes, moral subjectivity would that exactly, it is a philosophical claim just as well, even worse it's a claim not only about themself but a universal claim about all other minds that exist. To really be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism, claim of others are objective claim.

Wnope: To be a subjectivist is to accept solipsism?

Subjectivism (at least in my case) only applies to normative statements. I am just as capable as you are of evaluating descriptive sentences as having truth values.

A subjectivist can tentatively accept a normative presupposition AS LONG AS he recognizes that it is a presupposition with alternatives.

For instance, I might take as a presupposition that you ought to strive to live. However, I recognize that those who say "I ought not strive to live" are on just as solid a philosophical footing as I am.


Wnope: Instead, a moral subjectivist understands that normative goals may only be accomplished through real world action instead of armchair theorizing.

The Fool: I don't think the subjectivist has any exclusivity, on that even worse, it would be Tyranny to claim moral subjectivism and then hold others who have other subjective opinion accountable to yours. So world action couldn't even get off the ground without contradict moral subjectivism

Moreover it is very problematic if you care about not marginalizes a minority thus not accounting for their protection through normative ethics. Secondly, we may say that Religious is the norm, how do you protect justify protection of the other groups. How are you accounting for these problems?


Wnope: Salaafist terrorists have their set of moral presuppositions. Vegan atheist republicans have another.

When a society wishes to function under a set of rules, they can follow Rawls' methodology of public interest groups deciding upon a common set of laws.

That's why a Catholic extremist can live next door a vegan atheist. Both of them are subject to the SAME laws even their objective morality is different.

The Constitution is not a set of objective morals. It's a compilation of public interests organized through a representative framework. Some of those interests VEHEMENTLY disagreed morally (like on whether black people count as HUMAN) but they still created a government.

So it is wrong to say that an inability to blindly point to a normative statement and say "TRUE!" means society loses its ability to function under enforceable laws. Otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have existed.

All that was needed was a set of conditionals which lead to agreed upon standards such as "if you want to minimize property theft, your laws ought to...if you want to maximize political autonomy of the people, you ought to..."

Disagreements are on the conditionals. It's not "who is right" it's "which goals do we share and how can we best accomplish them?"

Do you consider the application of the bill of rights to Americas is an act of tyranny? It was quite subjective and based on how a committee wrote up a series of propositions from over a dozen independently acting states.

If your views on morality were true, I don't see how basic groups, not to mention nations, could form at all without complete moral homogeneity.


Wnope: Until objective morality has the ability to stop a rapist in his tracks, I'll take enforced personal subjective morality over armchair theorizing any day.

The Fool: There is nothing rational about that claim. until, you are able to defend your claim that its right you can't really claim morals at all now can you. The rapist is no better then you as long as they think it right.

Wnope: And I hope you have the common sense to recognize that societies can agree upon enforceable legal systems in order to achieve a goal like minimal harm without giving it some new metaphysical status.

The Fool: I hope you understand agreement is still subjective, and thus another society is just as right to nuke you if they feel you are not inline with their religion. Good luck with that.

Wnope:Now, this may shock you, but the world happens to function in this way. Salaafist terrorists have their set of moral presuppositions. Vegan atheist republicans have another.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay Whope you are out!!> There was three argument againt subjectivism on this thread. I am not going over spitefull nonsense If I don't see those argument then I am not respond.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:26:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:25:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Okay Whope you are out!!> There was three argument againt subjectivism on this thread. I am not going over spitefull nonsense If I don't see those argument then I am not respond.

And by spiteful nonsense you mean me responding to every charge you made?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:26:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/8/2012 6:25:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Okay Whope you are out!!> There was three argument againt subjectivism on this thread. I am not going over spitefull nonsense If I don't see those argument then I am not respond.

And by spiteful nonsense you mean me responding to every charge you made?

The Fool: they are the first three post on this thread
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:23:12 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A major problem of subjectivism is that it's become too popular through post-modernism that we don't realize how much it flat out doesn't make sense.

Logical contradiction:
That is if you have a subjective moral believe and someone has the opposite then you are conceding that (A&~A) makes sense as a part moral system. Remember these believes are in the same Objective Universe, so follows by law of non-contradiction that Moral Subjectivity is complete Nonsense.

Is that really the squad you want to be rolling with!!!!????

The Fool say, if you are rational you are certainly not a moral subjectivist.

As I pointed out numerous times, a subjectivist would say that individual 1 has moral system A, individual 2 has moral system B, and individual 1 and individual 2 interact and can cooperate even when particular parts of moral system A are incompatible with moral system B.

Individual 1 does not presuppose individual 2 will share moral system A. In fact, a subjectivist would predict the opposite, if anything.

A utilitarian and a deontologist can both seek to uphold anti-theft traditions even though their moral systems are systematically different and at times contradictory.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:27:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 10:40:35 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The wave of post-modernist subjectivism has also effect morality in a most harmful way.


Verse the justification from personal subjectivity.

A Subjectivist: Morals are subjective because the value is exclusive to each person

The Fool: If you taking a walk through the meadow, and you happen to see a bunny that day, and nobody else, sees that bunny that day, is that a personal(exclusive) experience.

A Subjectivist: Yes it exclusive but it was an empirical observation.

The Fool: Correct me if I am wrong but does not empirical observation simply an experience or observation.

A Subjectivist: yes, it does.

The Fool: Well, subjectivist I would attest and hope you do as well that of all thing you experience it is definitely the case that we experience our thoughts, ideas and emotions.

A Subjectivist: well of course we do.

The Fool: But subjectivist if they are experiences are they not just as true or real or objective as the bunny in the meadow or as I am experiencing speaking with you right not.

A Subjectivist: Yes. By god you are right.

The Fool: and if morals are of that nature should we not too consider them as real or as objective as the bunny.

A Subjectivist: Yes, yes, by God,, I have been Fooled!! <(8D)

You seem to be suggesting that to say we cannot give truth values to normative statements means we cannot give truth values to descriptive statements.

To experience a rabbit in a field is to infer that it is true that a rabbit is in a field.

You honestly think the experience of "I feel like I did something bad" can lead you to infer that, objectively, the action is bad? You can easily manipulate someone's emotional reaction to events by priming and even exposing them to IRRELEVANT emotions beforehand. Watching a stand up comedian won't change how you experience the color red. It does change how you emotionally react to whatever happens next NO MATTER HOW UNRELATED.

The analog to that kind of manipulation visually would be drug-induced hallucinations.

How can morality derived from emotional reactions be objective in the face of, say, the trolley problem.