|
Logical positivists are pedants. That's broadly my view.AARO posted:I know there are many non-theists who hold deep ethical and moral beliefs. I'm wondering how you respond to the positivists. Where is the verifiability for your moral and ethical claims? You can't prove with science that it's "wrong" to do anything can you? So why do you believe it? While I cannot conclusively prove that things are wrong or right, I can certainly get a fairly strong suggestion from observation and reasoning. Stealing things in the majority of cases is bad, because it deprives people of things they value and may indeed need in order to live properly, it also violates people's sense of security which is an important facet of their mental wellbeing. Stealing carries a signifiant potential for harming people, so as an extension of not harming people you should also not steal from people. You can make some pretty sound and practical ethical judgements without worrying about them being objectively correct. I suppose my most pressing response to "how do you make do with moral relativism" would be "why do you feel the need for moral absolutism?"
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Subjective claims and opinions are valuable because of their logical underpinning, their popularity does not diminish or increase their validity.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
AARO posted:It does seem to be self evident that all things which begin have a cause. Can you name one thing that began that did not have a cause? Presumably, everything. There is no rule that says the universe can't be infinitely cyclical. Also even if the universe did have a cause there is no reason why it has to be personified. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:41 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
AARO posted:Yeah, except for of course if you read the argument. The argument amounts to asserting that you find the concept of infinity absurd. Which, well, doesn't really matter? The universe does not have to be comprehensible or elegant. If it can be created by an unfathomable, infinitely powerful, uncaused Creator then why can't it just be immanently infinite, unfathomable, and uncaused?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:The point of morality is to have some ground from which one can claim that themselves and others ought to commit or not commit certain types of actions and to determine which of those actions deserve praise and which deserve condemnation. Thus, moral disputes are far more likely to be starting from similar premises than completely alien ones, in which case you can certainly argue that one set of actions better adheres to the goals and premises shared by both parties. The idea that morality is inevitably restricted to shouting conflicting opinions into a void with no possibility of meaningful debate doesn't really reflect reality.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Agreed. But, again, this is a philosophical discussion, not a sociological one. Let's not pretend that many subjective moralities in agreement have any more logical ground from which to make their moral claims than a single subjective morality. Why would they not have logical ground? They can state their premises and their goal, and then reason from the premises to devise a method of action to achieve the goal. That is a perfectly functioning morality. twodot posted:You're presuming human wellbeing has an objective meaning. I mean you're right that human beings being the same species and having similar experiences often agree on what wellbeing means, but if you are using common definitions as authoritative you're back to here: I am presuming that with sufficient discourse a consensus can be reached whereby either a concurrent definition of human wellbeing can be shared between two or more parties, or that the differences between definitions can be sufficiently articulated as to permit the reduction of the concept to those elements which are shared, and methods of achieving the unshared elements can also be devised. Where two goals are absolutely contradictory, I dunno, have a big fight and go with whoever is left standing or something. Whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:What does a consensus mean? The existence of, for example, crime seems to suggest that at least some people can't reach a consensus. If you mean majority, then that's already been addressed. Crime does not suggest the inability to reach consensus but rather than debate is not the only recourse of humans. The existence of a judicial system suggests that crime is considered to be firstly a failing of communication rather than an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Zaradis posted:You are correct. I did not state my point well. They would have logical ground from which to make moral claims. They would not have logical ground from which to claim that others ought to also agree with those moral claims. There is an internal, subjective logic to subjective morality. But I see no good reason why that subjective morality ought to hold sway over those who disagree with it. No opinion is more right or wrong than any other. Again this is true assuming there are no shared premises or goals between the two subjective opinions. Which I think is rather unlikely. If you share premises and goals you are having what is essentially an internal debate, and I think that the number of things to which this would not apply with sufficient discussion is rather small.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Very well, but multiple subjective moral opinions in agreement does nothing to give the internal system to which they agree any grounds from which they may claim their moral opinions apply to those outside of their internal system. That is my entire point. If a community agrees that stealing is wrong then the claim that stealing is wrong is a moral claim that holds within that community. But the community has no good basis from which to morally condemn those outside of their community who believe that stealing is morally right. Additionally, that stealing is morally wrong holds only as long as no community member changes their moral opinion about stealing and no new members who believe that stealing is right join the community. If you can find me a person who can set some premises, goals, and logic that stand up to dispute which prove that Stealing Is Right then I will quite happily become a kleptomaniac. Otherwise, I think I can probably find a flaw in at least one of those three.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Certainly. Just like the logical flaws I've pointed out with subjective moral claims. That you don't recognize them does not mean the flaws don't exist. Granted, almost all individuals, generally, ignore the absurdity of holding others accountable for having the same moral opinions as they themselves do. Which is why morality works in a practical sense, but a subjective basis for morality is no more than an opinion and holding others morally accountable to your moral opinions does not hold up logically. I can disagree with your moral opinions because the premises they are founded on don't make sense, the logic you apply to them does not follow, or because the goals you are trying for are counterproductive. I can illustrate that your morality is flawed by its own rules. Which is a perfectly valid form of criticism.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:You cannot illustrate that another's morality is flawed by it's own rules if morality is subjectively imposed on the world. To do so would require appeal to a non-subjective moral standard by which to compare the flawed subjective morality. If a non-subjective morality does not exist then your only recourse is comparison to a different subjective morality, likely your own, which, once again, is simply your opinion against another person's opinion. How on earth can I not point out logical flaws in another's logically constructed morality? A morality derives its validity from its logical soundness, if it fails logical scrutiny it loses validity, it's just so much assertion at that point. I don't need an objective truth to compare it to, I can point out its inherent contradictions.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Because if your morality is simply "Always gently caress pheasants" "Never eat toast" and "Sheep are Satan's instruments" then that's not really a morality, it's barely a coherent sentence. I am charitably assuming that there is some sort of thought going on in any form of morality that a human would employ and that humans are not simply walking around adhering to arbitrary, immutable, preprogrammed rules like they're a three-laws compliant android. If a human employs reasoning to construct their morality, and they invariably do in some manner, then that reasoning can be subject to criticism by whatever standard that person appeals to as the basis for their morality. It is often quite possible to point out flaws in a person's reasoning by their own standards of reasoning and the goal of moral philosophy should be to eliminate flaws in your own. As it stands in practice, any moral system which is simple enough to be completely and intuitively consistent is insufficiently interesting for any human to actually employ, and any system employed by an actual human is too complicated to be completely, intuitively, consistent. Thus there is always room for debate.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
I mean if we're going to chuck logic out of the window then I will beat you up and that is how I demonstrate the superiority of my moral system.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I'm saying the argument that there are moral facts , truths tokens whatever lead basically to fascism. That's a cornerstone of a fascist government is to know a moral truth above all others. Erm, "we hold these truths to be self evident"?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
I don't find hypothetical exercises to be incompatible with everyday ethics? You use the same reasoning for both?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Well, yes kinda. I derive my ethical instincts from my general ethical understanding.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I rely on my ethical instincts in the moment but those are informed by my general ethical framework, which is derived from sitting down and thinking, yes. I would also if time allows actually think about the correct thing to do more in-depth but if time does not I don't sit down and work it out, no. Like, my sense of what feels right comes from my instincts which are developed through thought exercises. I suppose at one point I had a different set of instincts but I can't remember it. Certainly nowadays it's derived from the cumulative results of my ethical experience. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:34 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I might be misunderstanding you but ethics aren't things, so I don't believe they exist in the sense that things like rocks and chairs exist. Ethics are the thoughts which dictate my actions in some situations, they are affected by the effects of my actions on other people. If my actions produce an effect I don't like, that informs my ethics for the next time. This applies also to hypotheticals because I can think about what the effects might be as a result of certain actions in certain situations and from that I can help determine what he underlying end-goal of my ethics should be. The trolley problem, for example illustrates that my desire should not be to personally avoid killing people but to minimise loss of life in general. Which is not immediately obvious from everyday experience because I'm not presented with the consequences of my actions as they harm people indirectly. It's an exhortation to consider what the effects of your actions might be even if you don't think you will actually have to experience them firsthand, a good thing, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:What was the last actual what you would consider ethical decision where you were conflicted as to the correct course of action There is abundant room for this in normal interpersonal relationships. Ethics should inform a great deal of your interaction with others.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:You're going to have to explain on this one. For example, I went to a barbecue with my family at no point in my interactions with them was their a question of a ethical decisions that needed to be made in this interaction. Most of my interaction with people involves topics or situations whereby ethics come into play. Yesterday for example I had to decide whether and how to intervene with a friend who is having some difficulty. Similarly there's a complex set of obligations towards most of the people I know which I have to decide whether I am able to fulfil at any given time. I would say probably about half of my interactions with others involve ethics in some way. But then perhaps I have an inordinate lack of... purposeless interactions with people? I almost always have a goal in mind.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yes and how did you make those actual decisions? Like what was the thought process behind it? Did you sit down and write a pros and cons, did you discuss in depth the nature of good and evil? Or was there a intrinsic decision making process. Was it a complex process?How are you defining ethical dilemma? Because I have to weigh the probability of success with their right to autonomy. Which varies on a case by case basis. Generally the conclusion I come to is that I lack sufficient information to make a proper decision and I should continue to pay attention and offer what help I can which does not violate their autonomy to as great a degree. It is an ethical dilemma because my decision may significantly impact their wellbeing, if I don't do a good job they'll end up worse off, if I do a good job they might end up better, if I do nothing then they may either resolve it by themselves or get worse. There's a lot of information to consider, much of which I don't have access to.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:Okay but where does your ethical responsibility to that person come from? Why is it important to you for your friend to benefit and not say the person you see on the street that his homeless? Like why do you place a value on that decision above other decisions? I don't? That's just the most recent one I came up with. I would say that I am personally endebted to most of the people I am familiar with so they do get preferential treatment but I can afford just about anybody the benefit of a proper ethical decision.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 17:21
|
|