Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 7:49 am
Throw crap at the wall and see what sticks. The clueless desperation is obvious. 'Moral subjectivism entails moral relativism'. False. 'Moral subjectivists can't know and say anything about morality, because all they have is feelings.' (Compare: if there are no aesthetic facts, there can be no aesthetic opinions.)
I don't think you are a moral subjectivist,
- Moral subjectivism states that morality is decided by the individual. The individual is the measuring stick that decides right and wrong. Under moral subjectivism, morals are subjective. They are based on personal tastes, feelings, and opinions.
but rather a moral relativist;
- Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?” Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.
I interpret you as a moral relativists because you do not accept universal or absolute set of moral principles [facts] e.g. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, and the likes.
If I am wrong, then confirm what is your moral position.
But feelings are part of the mix that goes into the formation of moral values, judgements and opinions. For example, revulsion at the spectacle of a person being roasted alive on a fire, or tortured and murdered on a cross, or enslaved - things of which one team's primitive desert god approves - a visceral response to cruelty can be an important element in morality.
To base morality on feelings, judgments and opinions is too flimsy and shaky. Some humans will feel revulsed with acts-X [tortured, murdered, enslaved and the like] but some do not feel it as immoral at all. So who is to judge they are moral or immoral.
At one time, slavery was accepted by the majority.
'Ah, but suppose you like witch burning, crucifixion and slavery? Suppose you're not revolted by them, but enjoy them and think they're morally right? If there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, no one can condemn you for having a different opinion. For example, you can't condemn my team's primitive desert god for commanding us to burn witches.' And yet many of us can and do.
Yes, many can condemn
from their personal subjective perspective what they deemed as immoral but what can they morally do about it other than expressing a personal opinion.
At most, in modern times, they can rely on the criminal laws, police and the judiciary, but this is politics not Morality & Ethics.
Moral objectivists go round and round trying to find a way out of the moral dilemma I pointed out in this OP, and in 'What could make morality objective?'. They want to argue a way out of our moral predicament. But every objectivist argument collapses, for reasons I've been trying to explain.
It is because moral subjectivism and moral relativism by definition will fail to promote morality-proper; morality proper is where humans will act morally spontaneously on their own with Freedom and no threat from a God nor the criminal laws.
Nevertheless the deluded [but low objectivity] Christianity moral model had contributed a limited degree of moral progress of humanity so far, but that is insufficient.
The only possibility to promote morality-proper is via objective moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable as conditioned upon a human based FSK where no threat nor coercion is imposed.
1 Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. This means that, for example, we can't get to a conclusion about moral rightness or wrongness (or good and evil) from a factual premise, even if the premise is true.
Morality-proper is not about what is right or wrong which is very subjective and relative where "one's man meat and another man's poison".
The only possibility to promote morality-proper is via objective moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable as conditioned upon a human based FSK where no threat nor coercion is imposed.
2 All the premises in arguments for moral objectivity are factual, or at least non-moral - because entailment from a moral premise doesn't demonstrate moral objectivity - it just chains moral assertions.
My series of argument of how there are objective moral facts.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
3 Moral assertions, expressing moral opinions are, as it were, 'stand alone' - so that, at the end or bottom of any moral argument, is a moral opinion. And this is what so disturbs moral objectivists: 'This cannot stand! There are moral facts - and I happen to know what they are!'
What are objective moral facts are not opinions but are verifiable and justifiable as physical facts via the scientific FSK.
(No one wants to recognise or admit the moral egotism this requires - or to acknowledge the more than evident scope for righteous cruelty: 'Because (it's a fact that) terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong, it's morally right to force a raped child to give birth.'
The deliberate premeditated termination a pregnancy is morally not permissible as a moral principle and fact [a categorical imperative] within a human based moral FSK; this is because if abortion is universalized, then theoretically, the human species will be extinct.
But this moral principle should not be enforced on individual by external authorities.
Principle is mere principle or rules [often broken], and there is no stopping people from having abortion but they must be aware what they are doing are against the moral principle, thus strive to ensure it is not repeated.
The focus of the abortion issue is to tackle the root cause, i.e. the impulsive and uncontrollable lust [lack of impulse controls] that led them fucking like animals ending with unwanted pregnancies [non-medical reasons].
The moral approach is for humanity to be mindful of the above lack of impulse controls at present so that greater impulse controls can be cultivated in the FUTURE such that there will be no or minimal unwanted pregnancies. This is very possible in the future.
