Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Moral relativism and valid opinions

sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:21:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Recently in another forum I was told my opinions were invalid. Could someone explain to me how my opinions can be invalid given that morality and right and wrong are relative? Is there some formula I am not aware of that is universal among all philosophers past and present that determine which opinions are valid and which aren't regardless of the topic being discussed.
Or is there some federal govt agency that determines whether ones opinion on anything is valid.
Or does the validity of an opinion change with each change in mob rule who ceases power by what ever means.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's pretty easy to be wrong; you definitely have a knack for it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know what it means for an argument to be invalid, but I don't know what it means for an opinion to be invalid. I think it's just a colloquial way of saying your opinion is wrong. It's easy to be wrong. Almost all of us are at one time or another.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:17:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The issue at hand may be the relativity which you speak of. To reason something out with another person is an axiomatic system. To reason that Jack loves Jill by axioms requires an agreement that Jack loves his girlfriend and Jill is his girlfriend therefore Jack loves Jill. It now stands to reason.

An opinion can be used in this system but the participants of the discussion must agree and the conclusion must be subjective. It is because subjectivity=opinion that a subjective argument is merely an opinion and therefore invalid as an argument.

Is this what you are having issues with?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:17:57 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
The issue at hand may be the relativity which you speak of. To reason something out with another person is an axiomatic system. To reason that Jack loves Jill by axioms requires an agreement that Jack loves his girlfriend and Jill is his girlfriend therefore Jack loves Jill. It now stands to reason.

An opinion can be used in this system but the participants of the discussion must agree and the conclusion must be subjective. It is because subjectivity=opinion that a subjective argument is merely an opinion and therefore invalid as an argument.

Is this what you are having issues with?

Ya, he thinks his position is not an opinion, which it most definitely is.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 5:54:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 5:33:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/11/2013 5:17:57 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
The issue at hand may be the relativity which you speak of. To reason something out with another person is an axiomatic system. To reason that Jack loves Jill by axioms requires an agreement that Jack loves his girlfriend and Jill is his girlfriend therefore Jack loves Jill. It now stands to reason.

An opinion can be used in this system but the participants of the discussion must agree and the conclusion must be subjective. It is because subjectivity=opinion that a subjective argument is merely an opinion and therefore invalid as an argument.

Is this what you are having issues with?

Ya, he thinks his position is not an opinion, which it most definitely is.

Here is the crux of it. History has proven time and time again that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. His intentions, in his mind, are good. He does not allow or calls invalid my argument that his good intentions come with highly probable negative consequences for the subject as a whole. As it opens up Pandora's box for the things that I in my opinion say will happen because the opening of the box paves the way for it to happen. His response is to prove that it will happen or my argument is invalid. He says there is nothing to suggest that anything could happen beyond the scope of the discussion. When clearly many many things can happen. Some all already in the works to happen days after the initial.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CrimsonArchitect
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:07:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Everything- Everything is relative! Facts are relative, there are no certainties among philosophers! We question, doubt, and perceive things to inspire. We- keep society from getting tunnel vision I would presume. Everything you say is wrong/correct simultaneously, because opinions are in themselves realities. *Flips Table*

But more importantly the point, I'm trying to make is don"t listen to other people- especially me, go drink some juice.
Crimson Means- Red.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 5:41:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me clarify, If I propose an augment or opinion that has real probability of becoming fact. Is it valid?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 5:53:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 5:41:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
Let me clarify, If I propose an augment or opinion that has real probability of becoming fact. Is it valid?

You? No.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 6:01:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You think "stupid" is validated by moral relativity?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 7:21:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:21:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
Recently in another forum I was told my opinions were invalid. Could someone explain to me how my opinions can be invalid given that morality and right and wrong are relative? Is there some formula I am not aware of that is universal among all philosophers past and present that determine which opinions are valid and which aren't regardless of the topic being discussed.
Or is there some federal govt agency that determines whether ones opinion on anything is valid.
Or does the validity of an opinion change with each change in mob rule who ceases power by what ever means.

So let me get this straight, because morality and right and wrong are relative, you think you aren't wrong, but the person you were talking to was wrong, is that it?

I'd say that in my opinion, and taking "that morality and right and wrong are relative" as a given, that isn't wrong, it's just stupid.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 8:27:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 5:41:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
Let me clarify, If I propose an augment or opinion that has real probability of becoming fact. Is it valid?

Validity doesn't concern probability or opinions, the validity of an argument is only in whether its premises guarantee its conclusion. If they do then the argument is valid, if they do not then the argument is invalid. That's really all there is to say on the matter. If someone told you your opinion was invalid then I would presume they mean that the argument that you used to justify your opinion was invalid. In fact, by definition, if you used no premises and only stated an opinion then it is invalid. This doesn't mean it's wrong just that you have not justified it.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that opinions do not need to be justified. If you aren't willing to justify your opinion, then I would ask what the point of stating it is. Nobody has any reason to believe you just because you believe it. Of course, many people will accept an argument from authority, and there may be good reasons to do this if there is insufficient time to examine all the evidence/reasoning. I don't make a habit of it, I believe an argument stands on its own regardless of who states it. Experience should only be used as an indicator of truth in cases where there are time constraints and/or the consequences are not important enough to matter.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 8:39:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:21:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
Recently in another forum I was told my opinions were invalid. Could someone explain to me how my opinions can be invalid given that morality and right and wrong are relative? Is there some formula I am not aware of that is universal among all philosophers past and present that determine which opinions are valid and which aren't regardless of the topic being discussed.
Or is there some federal govt agency that determines whether ones opinion on anything is valid.
Or does the validity of an opinion change with each change in mob rule who ceases power by what ever means.

Moral claims are normative, not positive. As they are normative, they cannot be proven or disproven. The only way that human morality could be objective is if it were over and above man, which is the reason that many claim that religion is the only source of morality in any meaningful sense -because the word of God would be over the word of man.

Opinions, though, are always subject to the question: Says who?

If I believe X and you believe Y, we can argue about it, but if X and Y are normative claims, we can't arrive at a "right" answer to our disagreement, because no such answer could exist. That's sort of why Nietzsche essentially said more or less that man is free to do as he pleases.

That is not to say that there is no morality, or that moral questions have no value -if nothing else there is a definitive utility to morality itself that alone vindicates the merit of morality's governing human behavior. But to say that "my opinion is valid and yours is not" is problematic.

However, we can form judgements of other's moral frameworks and value systems -and we often do. That is not to say that we think that they're right or wrong, but rather that we agree or disagree with how others view the world relative to how we see the world. That's what was happening in the other thread.
Tsar of DDO
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 8:56:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 8:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
If I believe X and you believe Y, we can argue about it, but if X and Y are normative claims, we can't arrive at a "right" answer to our disagreement, because no such answer could exist. That's sort of why Nietzsche essentially said more or less that man is free to do as he pleases.

I don't know that this is correct, could the "right answer" be related to identifying why we disagree? You believe in premise set A, I believe in premise set B and we both agree on premise set C. Thus we come to different answers on moral proposition Q. Under your assumptions we get 'Q is obligated' and under mine we get 'Q is not permitted' or at least 'Q is not obligated'. If A, B or C are inconsistent then there is a 'correct' answer, that one of us or both is 'wrong'. If A, B and C are consistent then the 'correct' answer is that 'Under A and C, Q is obligated and under B and C, Q is not obligated.' This is the objective of a moral discussion. Just because we don't come to the conclusion that one of us is right or wrong doesn't mean that we haven't come to a conclusion. Often times, people realise that they are talking about the same thing in slightly different ways.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 8:56:21 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/12/2013 8:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
If I believe X and you believe Y, we can argue about it, but if X and Y are normative claims, we can't arrive at a "right" answer to our disagreement, because no such answer could exist. That's sort of why Nietzsche essentially said more or less that man is free to do as he pleases.

I don't know that this is correct, could the "right answer" be related to identifying why we disagree? You believe in premise set A, I believe in premise set B and we both agree on premise set C. Thus we come to different answers on moral proposition Q. Under your assumptions we get 'Q is obligated' and under mine we get 'Q is not permitted' or at least 'Q is not obligated'. If A, B or C are inconsistent then there is a 'correct' answer, that one of us or both is 'wrong'. If A, B and C are consistent then the 'correct' answer is that 'Under A and C, Q is obligated and under B and C, Q is not obligated.' This is the objective of a moral discussion. Just because we don't come to the conclusion that one of us is right or wrong doesn't mean that we haven't come to a conclusion. Often times, people realise that they are talking about the same thing in slightly different ways.

Realize that you're talking about normative claims. If you don't know what that is, google it.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:14:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 7:21:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:21:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
Recently in another forum I was told my opinions were invalid. Could someone explain to me how my opinions can be invalid given that morality and right and wrong are relative? Is there some formula I am not aware of that is universal among all philosophers past and present that determine which opinions are valid and which aren't regardless of the topic being discussed.
Or is there some federal govt agency that determines whether ones opinion on anything is valid.
Or does the validity of an opinion change with each change in mob rule who ceases power by what ever means.

So let me get this straight, because morality and right and wrong are relative, you think you aren't wrong, but the person you were talking to was wrong, is that it?

I'd say that in my opinion, and taking "that morality and right and wrong are relative" as a given, that isn't wrong, it's just stupid.

"So let me get this straight, because morality and right and wrong are relative, you think you aren't wrong, but the person you were talking to was wrong, is that it?"

No, We disagree on the results of said action. The unintended consequences or lack there of. I am not saying what is being done can't be done. I am saying the probability of the unintended consequences of what has been done will most likely be negative given that said action is completely contradictory to the moral compass of said subject.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:21:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 8:27:31 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/12/2013 5:41:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
Let me clarify, If I propose an augment or opinion that has real probability of becoming fact. Is it valid?

Validity doesn't concern probability or opinions, the validity of an argument is only in whether its premises guarantee its conclusion. If they do then the argument is valid, if they do not then the argument is invalid. That's really all there is to say on the matter. If someone told you your opinion was invalid then I would presume they mean that the argument that you used to justify your opinion was invalid. In fact, by definition, if you used no premises and only stated an opinion then it is invalid. This doesn't mean it's wrong just that you have not justified it.

Many people make the mistake of assuming that opinions do not need to be justified. If you aren't willing to justify your opinion, then I would ask what the point of stating it is. Nobody has any reason to believe you just because you believe it. Of course, many people will accept an argument from authority, and there may be good reasons to do this if there is insufficient time to examine all the evidence/reasoning. I don't make a habit of it, I believe an argument stands on its own regardless of who states it. Experience should only be used as an indicator of truth in cases where there are time constraints and/or the consequences are not important enough to matter.

"The validity of an argument is only in whether its premises guarantee its conclusion."

Well then the person I am having this discussion with has an invalid argument. Because he can in no way "guarantee the outcome or conclusion" of the said action to be taken. But yet I have to prove with absolute certainty the con of his claimed outcome or my argument is invalid. Why does he not have to prove anything?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:59:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 9:21:22 PM, sadolite wrote:

"The validity of an argument is only in whether its premises guarantee its conclusion."

Well then the person I am having this discussion with has an invalid argument. Because he can in no way "guarantee the outcome or conclusion" of the said action to be taken. But yet I have to prove with absolute certainty the con of his claimed outcome or my argument is invalid. Why does he not have to prove anything?

I'm not familiar with the particular argument you are referring to. But if you are talking about an action then an action does not lead to a conclusion and so validity is not an issue. What is an issue is whether he has a valid argument beginning with the definition of the action and ending with the conclusion that a particular outcome of that action is unavoidable. If you show that your opponents argument is invalid this doesn't mean that the outcome will not occur, in which case you need to provide a counter argument which demonstrates a scenario in which the action does occur but the outcome does not. So you need to do both. If both your arguments are shown to be invalid then you come to no resolution, which is perfectly acceptable. Don't get offended that your argument is invalid, it doesn't mean your contention is false, just that you haven't yet demonstrated that it is true.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 8:37:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 5:41:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
Let me clarify, If I propose an augment or opinion that has real probability of becoming fact. Is it valid?

Depends on how you present it. Also, a "real probability of becoming fact" isn't a valid argument. For example, there are lots versions of String Theory that have a real possibility of being true. However, only one can be true. The possibility that one might be right isn't enough to argue for any single version of String Theory.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 6:11:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 9:10:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2013 8:56:21 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/12/2013 8:39:29 PM, YYW wrote:
If I believe X and you believe Y, we can argue about it, but if X and Y are normative claims, we can't arrive at a "right" answer to our disagreement, because no such answer could exist. That's sort of why Nietzsche essentially said more or less that man is free to do as he pleases.

I don't know that this is correct, could the "right answer" be related to identifying why we disagree? You believe in premise set A, I believe in premise set B and we both agree on premise set C. Thus we come to different answers on moral proposition Q. Under your assumptions we get 'Q is obligated' and under mine we get 'Q is not permitted' or at least 'Q is not obligated'. If A, B or C are inconsistent then there is a 'correct' answer, that one of us or both is 'wrong'. If A, B and C are consistent then the 'correct' answer is that 'Under A and C, Q is obligated and under B and C, Q is not obligated.' This is the objective of a moral discussion. Just because we don't come to the conclusion that one of us is right or wrong doesn't mean that we haven't come to a conclusion. Often times, people realise that they are talking about the same thing in slightly different ways.

Realize that you're talking about normative claims. If you don't know what that is, google it.

I'm aware of what a normative claim is. I'm also aware that there is still discussion over their true nature (not that I believe they have a 'true' nature). I was merely presenting a different notion of a 'right answer' which would serve as much more useful goal in moral discussions, since many people seem to agree that its all relative anyway.