moral relativism

[Immanuel Can]

Pete is only saying that we have the practice of making moral assertions and of rationalising with moral premises.

If that's all he were saying, then he would be saying nothing of any importance at all, nothing anybody could doubt, would bother to doubt, or would bother to defend.

We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?
Pete and I are moral antirealists, we say there is no such thing as a grand ultimate moral truth.
You predicate your objection on an assumption that there is because ... well that's a matter under investigation.

The existence and evolution of morality is explicable naturalistically.

It's not, actually.

We can explain-away morality by simply insisting that it's a product of the past plus evolution. But that's just instinct. And as I have pointed out above, instinct is a mixed bag of moral and immoral things. What it cannot do -- at all -- is legitimize that "morality." That is, it cannot prove that slavery or prostitution is moral, just because each is one of our oldest institutions and is inherited from the past, by evolution or otherwise.

So it ends up being an "is" with no "oughtness." We might say, it IS the case that humans have a tradition of rape or infanticide. That doesn't mean we OUGHT to regard those traditions as moral. And if we got them from the chimps, that certainly doesn't dignify them more.

Are you arguing here that we OUGHT to believe there is an ultimate moral truth for some reason (that it is useful to believe so for a practical purpose for instance)...
.... or that because there OUGHT to be such a truth (otherwise statements about abhoring certain behaviours aren't "legitimate" enough) then therefore there IS such a truth?

[Immanuel Can]

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?
Pete and I are moral antirealists, we say there is no such thing as a grand ultimate moral truth.

Peter says there are moral premises. What does he mean by "are"? Does he mean only that idiots say unreal things? Trivial. Or does he mean that some moral premises have at least a little obligatory force? Much more interesting: but I can't see how he believes that, on his view.

If none are legitimate, then that amounts to saying there are only lies framed in moral langugage, and we are under no duty at all to pay any attention to any of them...so there are no actual moral premises.

So I need to understand his view. Because he seems to say that there are no moral absolutes, but for some reason, we still have to take moral premises at least somewhat seriously.

And on his view, I don't think we can. So I'm awaiting his clarification.

[Immanuel Can]

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?

Whenever I try to talk to you, I feel like I'm in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA

I'll let you figure out which role is yours. "So you're saying...."

[FlashDangerpants]

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?
Pete and I are moral antirealists, we say there is no such thing as a grand ultimate moral truth.

Peter says there are moral premises. What does he mean by "are"? Does he mean only that idiots say unreal things? Trivial. Or does he mean that some moral premises have at least a little obligatory force? Much more interesting: but I can't see how he believes that, on his view.

If none are legitimate, then that amounts to saying there are only lies framed in moral langugage, and we are under no duty at all to pay any attention to any of them...so there are no actual moral premises.

So I need to understand his view. Because he seems to say that there are no moral absolutes, but for some reason, we still have to take moral premises at least somewhat seriously.

And on his view, I don't think we can. So I'm awaiting his clarification.

You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial. We can make up all sorts of things, not merely a huge number of variations on the pattern of morality, but an enormopuos number of vaguely similar religions, all sorts of differing cultures, uncountable different arts. All can support a great many premises for the making of statements and in many cases some sort of internal logic for disputes therein.

You for instance are some sort of Christian, some other people are some other sorts of Christian, from what I can gtell you are in dispute with those guys about all sorts of stuff. One lot apparently believes in wine literally being the blood of Chrimbo, without actually believing Chrimbo's blood was wine. There's special internal logics and premises to be made out of concepts depending upon those within all religions. Now either all these religions are made up, or all but one are. You can't however work out which religion is the correct one by examining only their mystical premises and findning out that only one religion has any, this is because this is definitely stuff that people can make up.

The reason you have to take moral premises "at least somewhat seriously" is an occasionally interesting question. But for it to be covered usefully on this forum we would have to get past the current situation that pertains here.

[Immanuel Can]

You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial.

Show me where I "allowed" that and "decided" that, Kathy Newman.

I never did.

Why do you feel the need to make things up, if you have good arguments?

[FlashDangerpants]

You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial.

Show me where I "allowed" that and "decided" that, Kathy Newman.

I never did.

Why do you feel the need to make things up, if you have good arguments?

Erm....

We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?

[Immanuel Can]

You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial.

Show me where I "allowed" that and "decided" that, Kathy Newman.

I never did.

Why do you feel the need to make things up, if you have good arguments?

Erm....

We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?

That doesn't mean I "allowed" them to do so, or that I "decided" that their doing son "wasn't controversial." You've misrepresented the whole import.

I was saying that for Peter to appeal to the fact that people use moral language doesn't even remotely imply that that they are correct or justified in so doing. Try to read in context, instead of using every word or phrase as an independent sound-bite and reacting as if I'd said something that the context makes very clear I never did.

In other words, drop the straw-manning. Drop the Kathy Newman pseudo-listening, i.e. the partial-listening-only-to-be-contentious. Try to form a thought out of the argument.

[Iwannaplato]

Never. Only way such a thing is just is if you're defending self or other from every person in that city or base, a silly notion.

And, of course, fetuses get nuked in that situation.

Everyone gets nuked.

Yes. When I was younger the no abortions ever group was also pretty pro-nuke. So, it's a question I toss out, since I think that's a problematic combination. Not impossible, but expect some gymnastics at least in the presentation. I want to be entertained when rebuffed at least.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sure, whatever.

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?
Pete and I are moral antirealists, we say there is no such thing as a grand ultimate moral truth.

Peter says there are moral premises. What does he mean by "are"? Does he mean only that idiots say unreal things? Trivial. Or does he mean that some moral premises have at least a little obligatory force? Much more interesting: but I can't see how he believes that, on his view.

If none are legitimate, then that amounts to saying there are only lies framed in moral langugage, and we are under no duty at all to pay any attention to any of them...so there are no actual moral premises.

So I need to understand his view. Because he seems to say that there are no moral absolutes, but for some reason, we still have to take moral premises at least somewhat seriously.

And on his view, I don't think we can. So I'm awaiting his clarification.

You already allowed that "We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?". In keeping with this observation you have made, we can make up all sorts of things, not merely a huge number of variations on the pattern of morality, but an enormopuos number of vaguely similar religions, all sorts of differing cultures, uncountable different arts. All can support a great many premises for the making of statements and in many cases some sort of internal logic for disputes therein.

You for instance are some sort of Christian, some other people are some other sorts of Christian, from what I can gtell you are in dispute with those guys about all sorts of stuff. One lot apparently believes in wine literally being the blood of Chrimbo, without actually believing Chrimbo's blood was wine. There's special internal logics and premises to be made out of concepts depending upon those within all religions. Now either all these religions are made up, or all but one are. You can't however work out which religion is the correct one by examining only their mystical premises and findning out that only one religion has any, this is because this is definitely stuff that people can make up.

The reason you have to take moral premises "at least somewhat seriously" is an occasionally interesting question. But for it to be covered usefully on this forum we would have to get past the current situation that pertains here.

[Walker]

And, of course, fetuses get nuked in that situation.

Everyone gets nuked.

Yes. When I was younger the no abortions ever group was also pretty pro-nuke. So, it's a question I toss out, since I think that's a problematic combination. Not impossible, but expect some gymnastics at least in the presentation. I want to be entertained when rebuffed at least.

Question:
When is it ok to nuke a city or a military base near a city?

Answer: Obviously …

Historic rationale for the nuker, is when the nuking ends conflict, and ends non-enemy deaths.
Historic rationale for the nuked, is never.

[Immanuel Can]

You already allowed that "We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?".

I didn't "allow" it. I pointed it out. I no more "allowed" it than I "allowed" slavery or rape by mentioning them.

Track the "so what"? So what if they tell lies? So what if they imagine moral values when they don't exist? So what if they happen to have found a society, even, that at this juncture of history happens to agree with them about their lying language? So what?

The point is that no deduction about morality being a real thing can be drawn from the observation that some fool talks as if it is, or even if a thousand or a million fools do. We need something much more than that, if we're going to say that "moral" means something real and legit.

And I'm waiting for Peter's response. Until then, I'm done with yours. It's clear you don't even understand the argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

Everyone gets nuked.

Yes. When I was younger the no abortions ever group was also pretty pro-nuke. So, it's a question I toss out, since I think that's a problematic combination. Not impossible, but expect some gymnastics at least in the presentation. I want to be entertained when rebuffed at least.

Question:
When is it ok to nuke a city or a military base near a city?

Answer: Obviously …

Historic rationale for the nuker, is when the nuking ends conflict, and ends non-enemy deaths.
Historic rationale for the nuked, is never.

It's nice to see such enthusiastic moral relativism from one of your little clique. I only hope Henry and IC don't stomp you for it.

[FlashDangerpants]

You already allowed that "We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?".

I didn't "allow" it. I pointed it out. I no more "allowed" it than I "allowed" slavery or rape by mentioning them.

Track the "so what"? So what if they tell lies? So what if they imagine moral values when they don't exist? So what if they happen to have found a society, even, that at this juncture of history happens to agree with them about their lying language? So what?

The point is that no deduction about morality being a real thing can be drawn from the observation that some fool talks as if it is, or even if a thousand or a million fools do. We need something much more than that, if we're going to say that "moral" means something real and legit.

And I'm waiting for Peter's response. Until then, I'm done with yours. It's clear you don't even understand the argument.

The bolded section seems like Pete's point doesn't it? Why are you criticising an antirealsit for not uncovering a reality?

As for the red bit ... what is the assumption you are making about legitimacy here?

[henry quirk]

Yes. When I was younger the no abortions ever group was also pretty pro-nuke.

Same here.

I think that's a problematic combination.

Me too.