Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

which moral philosophy is true?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 3:11:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Well that would be something created by man.
Your god or anyone elses god would be irrelevant, which is true in reality.
Do you have an answer to your question?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 3:31:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I think the word "intrinsic" is redundant since under moral nihilism ethical sentences aren't truth-apt whatsoever.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 3:45:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 3:31:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I think the word "intrinsic" is redundant since under moral nihilism ethical sentences aren't truth-apt whatsoever.

"Intrinsically" defines it more absolutely in terms of objective existence. Morality is a subjective concept, so while moral statements can be believed to be true or false, there is no applicable subject to which to assign an objective truth value ("value" is also subjective). It would be akin to asking: what is the color of nothing? I would agree with your (2), simultaneously, if it did not say "...moral statements are made true or false...". If it said that they were "interpreted", or some other similar wording, then I believe the two are compatible.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

I think that is best option. Right can be evaluated objectively. And that is done by the rule; do others what you want to be done to you. Every right person takes to himself, is automatically also for others, because there is no reason why not. That is why, if you don"t want to be killed, don"t murder, because if you murder, you give others right to kill you. Every right person takes to himself, belongs also to the other people. Therefore, if person doesn"t want something to be done to him, he should not do that to others. It is really simple thing and it can"t really be refuted objectively. And if people would live according to this, they would not do harmful things to others.

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

If nothing is wrong, everything is right. They are opposites, like on and off, can"t have both of them and one is always selected.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:23:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

I think that "Ethic Theory" falls under two categories with different subsets to the categories.
(1) Cognitivism
(2) Noncognitivism

Moral Realism, Moral Relativism, and Moral Nihilism are subsets of Ethical Cognitivism.

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:25:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 3:45:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:31:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I think the word "intrinsic" is redundant since under moral nihilism ethical sentences aren't truth-apt whatsoever.

"Intrinsically" defines it more absolutely in terms of objective existence. Morality is a subjective concept, so while moral statements can be believed to be true or false, there is no applicable subject to which to assign an objective truth value ("value" is also subjective). It would be akin to asking: what is the color of nothing? I would agree with your (2), simultaneously, if it did not say "...moral statements are made true or false...". If it said that they were "interpreted", or some other similar wording, then I believe the two are compatible.

What separates moral subjectivism from moral nihilism is that under subjectivism ethical sentences can express subjective moral truths whereas under nihilism ethical sentences can't even express subjective moral truths. Saying "Huzzah for Bob!" can neither have a subjectively or objectively true answer. Under nihilism all moral sentences are like saying "Huzzah for Bob!" Since nothing is subjectively or objectively right or wrong under nihilism the word intrinsic isn't necessary because ethical sentences are just not truth-apt at all.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:30:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:23:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

I think that "Ethic Theory" falls under two categories with different subsets to the categories.
(1) Cognitivism
(2) Noncognitivism

Moral Realism, Moral Relativism, and Moral Nihilism are subsets of Ethical Cognitivism.

Moral nihilism falls under non-cognitivism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:04:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

Morals are not inherent to man, but they are inevitable when he deals with another, in a peaceful fashion. Could be what is understood within a family, or household. Could be law binding a people and it"s government.

But if one isn"t in agreement, via the necessary show of agreement to the agreement to the agreed. Then one isn"t bond, and not ethically responsible to perform what is in the agreement.

If you are a US citizen and in the US then you are not morally or ethically bond to Russian law and morals. But if you are a US citizen and are in Russian territory then you are to perform as though you are a Russian citizen with respect to what is tolerated by them of your way of life, which is what you agree to by entering their country. Hence you are now morally bond until you leave Russia.

How that falls under your multiple choice there, I"m not sure.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:08:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So which of your man made philosophies are actually coming from your god and if neither then what is the point, since it's your god who determines all?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:09:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:25:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:45:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:31:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I think the word "intrinsic" is redundant since under moral nihilism ethical sentences aren't truth-apt whatsoever.

"Intrinsically" defines it more absolutely in terms of objective existence. Morality is a subjective concept, so while moral statements can be believed to be true or false, there is no applicable subject to which to assign an objective truth value ("value" is also subjective). It would be akin to asking: what is the color of nothing? I would agree with your (2), simultaneously, if it did not say "...moral statements are made true or false...". If it said that they were "interpreted", or some other similar wording, then I believe the two are compatible.

What separates moral subjectivism from moral nihilism is that under subjectivism ethical sentences can express subjective moral truths whereas under nihilism ethical sentences can't even express subjective moral truths. Saying "Huzzah for Bob!" can neither have a subjectively or objectively true answer. Under nihilism all moral sentences are like saying "Huzzah for Bob!" Since nothing is subjectively or objectively right or wrong under nihilism the word intrinsic isn't necessary because ethical sentences are just not truth-apt at all.

"Subjective truth" doesn't make sense to me, since truth is "in accordance with reality". How can something that doesn't exist be judged to be in accordance with reality? It seems absurd to say something like "God subjectively exists for all theists". That's why the "intrinsic" descriptor is necessary; subjective issues are not applicable for a "right" or "wrong" designation.

Of course, I *believe* that all my opinions are true, but that in no way shape or form makes them true. So, yeah, I can issue the expression, "Huzzah for Bob!", when I believe that something beneficial happened to him, but that doesn't make it true. For instance, if Bob won a year's supply of ice cream and I didn't know that he was severely lactose intolerant.

If we are not meeting in understanding, then please define "truth" for the purposes of subjectivism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:37:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:09:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:25:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:45:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:31:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 3:07:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."

I believe that (3) is correct, but I think an important word is missing: "intrinsically". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I think the word "intrinsic" is redundant since under moral nihilism ethical sentences aren't truth-apt whatsoever.

"Intrinsically" defines it more absolutely in terms of objective existence. Morality is a subjective concept, so while moral statements can be believed to be true or false, there is no applicable subject to which to assign an objective truth value ("value" is also subjective). It would be akin to asking: what is the color of nothing? I would agree with your (2), simultaneously, if it did not say "...moral statements are made true or false...". If it said that they were "interpreted", or some other similar wording, then I believe the two are compatible.

What separates moral subjectivism from moral nihilism is that under subjectivism ethical sentences can express subjective moral truths whereas under nihilism ethical sentences can't even express subjective moral truths. Saying "Huzzah for Bob!" can neither have a subjectively or objectively true answer. Under nihilism all moral sentences are like saying "Huzzah for Bob!" Since nothing is subjectively or objectively right or wrong under nihilism the word intrinsic isn't necessary because ethical sentences are just not truth-apt at all.

"Subjective truth" doesn't make sense to me, since truth is "in accordance with reality". How can something that doesn't exist be judged to be in accordance with reality? It seems absurd to say something like "God subjectively exists for all theists". That's why the "intrinsic" descriptor is necessary; subjective issues are not applicable for a "right" or "wrong" designation.

It depends on whether you believe reality exists external to the mind. If reality exists external to the mind then there are no subjective truths. If reality doesn't exist external to the mind then there can be subjective truths. "That was a good movie" is a subjective truth. The truth of the matter is contingent upon your personal assessment. "The movie is 2hr 1 minute long" is an objective truth. "Movie, obey the closet door" is just not something that can ever be true or false.

Of course, I *believe* that all my opinions are true, but that in no way shape or form makes them true. So, yeah, I can issue the expression, "Huzzah for Bob!", when I believe that something beneficial happened to him, but that doesn't make it true. For instance, if Bob won a year's supply of ice cream and I didn't know that he was severely lactose intolerant.

If we are not meeting in understanding, then please define "truth" for the purposes of subjectivism.

Truth is whatever corresponds with reality. How we define reality is the important part. "Something beneficial happened to Bob" is a truth-apt statement meaning it's a form of subjectivism. Taken by itself, "huzzah for Bob!" is not true or false. There's some overlap between subjectivism and nihilism. Both are anti-realist views.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:49:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:37:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Truth is whatever corresponds with reality.
Thus ruling out gods and unicorns.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 6:13:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:37:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:09:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

"Subjective truth" doesn't make sense to me, since truth is "in accordance with reality". How can something that doesn't exist be judged to be in accordance with reality? It seems absurd to say something like "God subjectively exists for all theists". That's why the "intrinsic" descriptor is necessary; subjective issues are not applicable for a "right" or "wrong" designation.

It depends on whether you believe reality exists external to the mind. If reality exists external to the mind then there are no subjective truths. If reality doesn't exist external to the mind then there can be subjective truths. "That was a good movie" is a subjective truth. The truth of the matter is contingent upon your personal assessment. "The movie is 2hr 1 minute long" is an objective truth. "Movie, obey the closet door" is just not something that can ever be true or false.

If reality does not exist apart from the mind, then the notions of subjective/objective are useless, because there is no "objective". None of these positions are compatible with philosophical idealism, that I can see. Truth also loses meaning because it means, "in accordance with reality", and if you define reality as your mind, then everything is true that is in accordance with itself.

Before continuing, explain what "objective" means, assuming philosophical idealism.

Of course, I *believe* that all my opinions are true, but that in no way shape or form makes them true. So, yeah, I can issue the expression, "Huzzah for Bob!", when I believe that something beneficial happened to him, but that doesn't make it true. For instance, if Bob won a year's supply of ice cream and I didn't know that he was severely lactose intolerant.

If we are not meeting in understanding, then please define "truth" for the purposes of subjectivism.

Truth is whatever corresponds with reality. How we define reality is the important part. "Something beneficial happened to Bob" is a truth-apt statement meaning it's a form of subjectivism. Taken by itself, "huzzah for Bob!" is not true or false. There's some overlap between subjectivism and nihilism. Both are anti-realist views.

"Something beneficial happened to Bob" is an objective statement, with "beneficial" indicating something that occurred that is demonstrably beneficial to Bob's well-being and happiness (strengthening it). Now, whether that, in of and itself, is a good thing is entirely subjective (which was the "huzzah!" part). Overall, this being a good thing requires value (which is subjective), which therefore doesn't exist in reality. So, how can my the truth of my statement be compared to something that isn't there in reality? Again, like asking: what color is nothing?

The above statements are issued in rejection of philosophical idealism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 4:24:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:30:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:23:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:00:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Moral theory falls under three major categories

(1) moral objectivism
(2) moral subjectivism
(3) moral nihilism

I think that "Ethic Theory" falls under two categories with different subsets to the categories.
(1) Cognitivism
(2) Noncognitivism

Moral Realism, Moral Relativism, and Moral Nihilism are subsets of Ethical Cognitivism.

Moral nihilism falls under non-cognitivism

No, it doesn't.
Both non-cognitivism and moral nihilism use error theory, but both take different conclusions to the result.
A moral nihilist says nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, but does not deny the concepts of rightness and wrongness.
They do get mistaken as being the same sometimes, but that simply is not the case.

Moral objectivism: "ethical sentences can express propositions that are necessarily true (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

Moral subjectivism: "Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone."

Moral nihilism: "There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong."
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO