Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:42 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:26 am
Hitler had strong moral reasons for believing killing 6 million Jews and million others was morally right!
That is your moral relativism.

True.
That is exactly right.
QED Morality is in fact subjective. That does not make ANY particular moral value "TRUE" or "FALSE", but that this is simply one example of a culturally subjective moral position.
What about that do you not understand???

In other words, you are condoning what Hitler and other evil actors are entitled to do what they claimed as true and morally right.

So it appear your definition of morality is whatever humans deemed to be true and morally right to do.

If not what is your definition of what is morality.

Note what is morality-proper [..I had defined earlier] based on empirical evidence within humanity is generally 'to promote what is good and avoiding evil'.

If someone were to insist it is morally right to commit the worse evil acts to you, your family, relatives, friends and humanity, how would you counter that or has any basis to convince them otherwise?

In the same way you would.
But I would have the advantage since I would not be hampered by holding on to a lie that my way was the only objectively true way.
A lie they would not accept and possibly be insulted by.

And that is IN FACT the state of affairs that has pertained since the dawn of human morality.
When you understand that, you realise that morality is a thing you have to fight for.
It's pointless pretending that you are the only person that is right, and everyone else is wrong.

The big problem comes when people, like you, claim that their position is objectively true, much like Hitler claimed his idea to be objectively morally correct.

You are eeling your way around with very loose ideas of what is subjectivity, objectivity and morality.

Nope you got it wrong, it not a fact that humans insisted is it their moral right to commit the worse evil acts to others, their family, relatives, friends and humanity.

Note Steven Pinker's argument, the trend that evil and violence has reduced relatively.
download/file.php?id=2950

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:06 am You might be stupid enough to think that, yes.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:06 am But I don't care what you think.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:06 am My answer is comprensive.
Nothing I said implied that.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:53 am If you believe not-P then what implies that you should continue searching (S) versus not searching (not-S)?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:25 pm Let's try it this way: in your view, if one believes that P, why would that imply to you that one would not explore the possibility that not-P?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:59 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:22 pm So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

If it's all relative, then genocide must be as moral as non-genocide.

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

You are very lost here.

What is crucial is we must define what is morality, i.e. morality-proper and not just tom, dick and harry's morality.

What is YOUR definition of morality?
It is because you did not provide a specific definition of what is morality that you are able to 'eel' and slide your way around.

I had defined "what is morality-proper" a "1000" times i.e. generally as morality-proper is about promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. ['terms' as defined].

Genocide is a moral issue.
Genocide is evil and is to be avoid in accordance to the definition of morality-proper.

That 7+ billion think genocide is wrong is not necessary objective, e.g. once almost everyone thought the Earth was flat.
But such a high majority will give us a very strong abductive clue that there is a high possibility of 'objectivity' on such a moral issue.

What is "objective" must be a FSK-dependent-fact, e.g. a moral fact that is objective, i.e. independent of individual opinions and beliefs.
I have already argued a moral fact is one that is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the moral fact of inherent ought_ness and inhibition in the brain of ALL humans, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.
thus
'no human ought to commit genocide.'

The above is how we differentiate genocide from the moral standard of no-genocide within a credible moral-FSK.
Note whatever is 'morality' must be qualified to a moral-FSK.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:38 pm Morality consists of judgments/assessments/dispositions/etc. of interpersonal (where "a person towards themself" is a possibility), action-oriented behavior that the assessor considers more significant than etiquette. The judgments/assessments in question are of the nature of behavior being acceptable/permissible versus unacceptable/impermissible, morally good versus morally bad, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus prohibitable, and so on.

Agreement doesn't make it more likely that we're talking about something objective, because agreement in itself doesn't suggest that we're talking about something that's other than a mental phenomenon.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:41 pm
If the judgments/assessments/behaviours/actions/recommendations/obligations/prohibitions don't prevent your society from becoming extinct - your conception of morality is objectively immoral. Because it's self-defeating.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:45 pm The extramental world couldn't care less whether we go extinct or not. Only we care.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:28 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:25 pm Let's try it this way: in your view, if one believes that P, why would that imply to you that one would not explore the possibility that not-P?

In my view there is no such implication. You keep trying to insert one.

In my view "I am are exploring the possibility of not-P means exactly the same thing as I believe in not-P"
Exactly like "I am exploring the possibility of P means exactly the same thing as I believe in P"

To believe is to explore.
To stop exploring is to stop believing.

Beliefs are present desires about future states of mind. I believe that in the future I want to know if P or not-P. That's why I am searching!

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:52 pm If belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that P means you believe that P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that P?

And if belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that not-P means you believe that not-P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that not-P, too?

And then what do you call that future state of mind? It's not a belief, which is a desire on your account, but a what? (Just curious if you do have a term for it.)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:48 pm
Correct. Which is why "objectivity" is never was about the "external world".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:53 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:52 pm If belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that P means you believe that P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that P?

And if belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that not-P means you believe that not-P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that not-P, too?

And then what do you call that future state of mind? It's not a belief, which is a desire on your account, but a what? (Just curious if you do have a term for it.)

Why are you avoiding commitment?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:54 pm Or it's why if we're using "objectivity" to refer to stuff that occurs extramentally, morality isn't objective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:54 pm Only interested in you answering the questions I asked there.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:55 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:54 pm Only interested in you answering the questions I asked there.

I am not interested in your question.