Is morality objective or subjective?

[henry quirk]

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning, please.

Edited to shut H up.

[Harbal]

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning.

You can't just stroll in and start demanding answers, henry. You gotta put the time in first.

[promethean75]

I can't tell u it's wrong, only that i don't like it.

Here's a question for you. What's the difference between being a slave and a prison inmate?

You're in prison for breaking the law? What makes the law u broke, right?

[henry quirk]

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning.

You can't just stroll in and start demanding answers, henry. You gotta put the time in first.

I have.

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:07 pm

If that's the measure: then shut up, H. You ain't been here long enough.

[henry quirk]

I can't tell u it's wrong, only that i don't like it.

Why don't you like it?

Here's a question for you. What's the difference between being a slave and a prison inmate?

The slave is taken without just cause and used for an indeterminate period as his owner likes. He has no rights: he is property.

The inmate has broken a law. He's been arrested for a period of time after which he is free. Even as an inmate he ostensibly has rights.

You're in prison for breaking the law? What makes the law u broke, right?

Which law? It makes a difference.

[Harbal]

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning.

You can't just stroll in and start demanding answers, henry. You gotta put the time in first.

I have.

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:07 pm

If that's the measure: then shut up, H. You ain't been here long enough.

Very well, henry, if that is your attitude, you leave me no choice but to do as you say.

[promethean75]

"Why don't you like it?"

Cuz it sux.

"The slave is taken without just cause"

Who decides what 'just cause' is?

"He has no rights: he is property."

In many cases a slave has more rights and more freedom than an inmate. And for all intents and purposes, an inmate is just as much the property of the state as the slave is the property of the owner.

"He's been arrested for a period of time after which he is free."

Unless he's serving a life sentence. Whereas in many cases a slave can be freed.

"Which law? It makes a difference."

No it really doesn't. I mean in a deep philosophical way. All laws are spooks.

[henry quirk]

Good (and good riddance).

[henry quirk]

Cuz it sux.

Why?

Who decides what 'just cause' is?

Good question: what is a just cause to take a man's life, to curtail his liberty, to deprive him of property?

In many cases a slave has more rights and more freedom than an inmate.

The slave has the same rights as anyone. What he lacks is legal privilege.

And for all intents and purposes, an inmate is just as much the property of the state as the slave is the property of the owner.

Practically, you're right. That's not how it's supposed to be, though.

Unless he's serving a life sentence. Whereas in many cases a slave can be freed.

Even the lifer can receive commutation.

No it really doesn't.

Yes, it really does. The man jailed for speakin' his mind is a different animal from the one jailed for raping a child. You do see the difference, yeah?

I mean in a deep philosophical way. All laws are spooks.

If Max wants to join the conversation, he can. I'm not tusslin' with him, by way of a proxy. Leave off with the Stirnerisms, please.

[Harbal]

Good (and good riddance).

It's no good trying to get round me now, henry, the damage is done.

[promethean75]

"The slave has the same rights as anyone. What he lacks is legal privilege."

These are the same to me as i don't believe in inherent rights. So this to me is splitting hairs.

"Yes, it really does. The man jailed for speakin' his mind is a different animal from the one jailed for raping a child. You do see the difference, yeah?"

Of course, but the law against raping someone is no less arbitrary than the law prohibiting u from using seditious language.

"If Max wants to join the conversation, he can. I'm not tusslin' with him, by way of a proxy. Leave off with the Stirnerisms, please."

846bkh.jpg

[FlashDangerpants]

That sounds like the opening sentence of an interesting theory. I would like to read the rest one day.

It's a brand new theory, I just came up with it an hour ago. I'm just coming with it right now. Let's write a theory:

Having been forced to deal with sociopaths, narcissists, and even one female psychopath (seriously guys, you can't even begin to imagine how otherworldly that one was), but also dealing with many moral and empathetic people, I think I know a thing or two about morality. I mean, I think I know exactly what it is. It's all a fairly simple psychological thing really at its basis.

And then there's this field of ethics and I can't make heads or tails of it. This theory, that theory, long debates, this position, that position, maybe this, maybe that, we can't decide, like wtf are they talking about?

Well can't it be that that entire field is backwards? Obviously in ethics you must take the human conscience, see how it generates moral views that are visceral first as in they are felt, and then see how these views get expressed in language. Trying to start from language is patent nonsense. (And from this basis the rest of ethics can be built up. Like my position, that the optimal solution would be a worldwide pseudo-realist ethical consensus, but I know this won't happen.)

So how could it be all backwards? Hmm let's see. Well two factors come to mind now. First there is this thousands of years old delusion called objective morality, which is available in texts like the Bible, so I guess that's one reason to start from texts.

The other one: well there are these people who are fairly morally retarded, but not entirely, but otherwise they are nice guys. And they notice that something is quite off, and get super curious about this thing called morality, but never really manage to put their fingers on it. They become obsessed with it, read a lot about it, write a lot about it, try to analyze a lot of text about it, maybe start a philosophical school about it. They write it all down, and then stare at the words, hoping that the words will give them some more answers.

Not sure if I'm one of the retarded ones there, but I won't take that personally. There are philosophers who make a big point of the the notion that humans naturally and unavoidably see the world in normative terms. And when we see the behaviour of animals, they can demonstrate some of the same, but on a more limited scale because they can't articulate their thoughts in words as we do. We are able to recognise in some situations that dogs have a sense of what is fair and unfair, and they clearly don't approve of unfairness. But we're likely fooling ourselves if we think our pets have complex second order moral attitudes such as remorse. There's a line to be drawn between what we can do morally without language and what just doesn't work under that paradigm.

There's a moral realist called Christine Korsgaard who has done a bunch of stuff along those lines. She does Neo-Kantian Constructivism, which is another weird theory. If VA could read and understand things other people write, this shoit would blow his mind. But the very broad brush version of it isn't a million miles from some stuff you've said about making morality real if everyone can agree an agenda. While I think it's a bit wrong headed I get the point and I wouldn't say it was junk. here's a 15 minute interview with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzBLPDt-Bl0

[FlashDangerpants]

And incest is only truly problematic in regard to possible biological defects. Otherwise, any number of men and women have engaged in incestuous relationships and found them entirely fulfilling. Myself, for example.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't answer questions about "Hamas murderers", because I don't know anything about them.

You don't have to know them personally. The evidence is abundant. Right now, you could find a bunch of gleeful terrorists shooting, raping and murdering Israelis. Then you could find thousands of people engaged in demonstrations in support of the murderers, chanting "Gas the Jews" a the top of their lungs.

What I have said to you about morality is based on my own experience of it...

You're deliberately avoiding the stuff I showed you. But it doesn't change the obvious truth that different people have different emotions over the same situation. And even your experience will show you that, if you're married.

We have emotions that are prompted by moral issues, and we are often motivated by those emotions. I am not claiming we all experience the same emotions in any given set of circumstances, quite the contrary, in fact.

Great. Then there is zero plausiblity to the claim that "emotions" tell us what morality is.

Well I am not claiming emotions tell us what morality is, things like dictionaries do that.

Dictionaries give definitions of words. They will never be able to give you the "definition" of when a particular action is moral or not.

But I'm thinking you get that. You seem to be deflecting.

For if two people can see the same situation, and each -- say a Palestinian observer and a Jewish one -- can have opposite emotions about it, then "emotion" is not any source of reliable moral information.

I am not familiar with the concept of "reliable moral information", so I really can't comment.

A subjectivist won't have any, of course. But "reliable moral information" would be something capable of actually giving a moral person a reason to think something is actually right or wrong, and getting it right.

So what we would like to think is "moral" isn't necessarily "moral" at all. Hamas slitting babies' throats will NEVER be moral, no matter how gleeful or fulfilled the terrorist happens to be when he does it.

But how can we know the baby would not have grown up to be an obnoxious adult?

Do you slit the throats of people you find obnoxious?

And will you shut the fuck up about Hamas...

No, because it's a very obvious and current example of exactly what I'm telling you. You say you need proof? Well, now you have it: people have opposite "emotions" sometimes, and feel quite oppositely about the same moral situation. That's an empirical fact, and one that subjectivism's attempt to look to emotions for moral information cannot account for.

Absurd if you equate what they are feeling with "moral." Are you doing that, still?

The moral value we put on something is dependant on how we feel about it, which seems to be obvious to everyone but you.

It would be obvious to you that that was wrong, if you'd just click on the websites I sent you.

But you won't, I'm guessing. I see that you fear the data. And I understand: it would blow the moral subjectivist argument about emotions being able to inform us about morality right out of the water...and I see that you're just not going to let that happen, are you?

Okay, then...that's as far as we can go. You like emotions. You want to call them "morality." You don't care about any evidence to the contrary. What more can I say about that?

[henry quirk]

I note you didn't tell me why slavery sux or offer an answer about what is a just cause to take a man's life, to curtail his liberty, to deprive him of property.

Anyway: your position is clear: there are no natural rights, man is a meat machine, morality is a fiction, might makes right, and slavery is not wrong. You believe it sux, and you don't like it, but slavery is not wrong.

Good to know where you stand.

-----

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning, please.