The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

There might be objective morals.

Well, I'll take that as progress.

But it seems doubtful given that no one has been able to show them after all this time.

Thank you. I thought my points were spot on, too!

 

[Moral Orel]

For the third time, I know what it means.

So then you understand why your previous objection fails, yes yes?

And for the third time, what we're looking for is your argument to support your claim that:

No, for the third time we're discussing your claims. You asked whether everything is subjective or just morality, and I gave you an example of an objective fact. Now you want to talk about that instead to distract from your points failing.

We have to assume that you really don't have an argument, do you?

I do. I've posted that argument on more than one occasion here on these forums before. You didn't come across it while digging through my posts through the last three years to try and catch me flip-flopping?

So, let's sum up. You're OK with the Holocaust and slavery too. Is that right?

I never said anything of the sort. Don't just make stuff up. Subjectivists aren't "just okay" with everything. Again, you don't understand subjective morality. Do you want to at least learn what it means before you whip up anymore objections that don't fit?

Well, your post from that thread sounds hard-core morally objective on the normal understanding of slavery as humans treated as chattel.

I said it's bad. I didn't say it's "objectively bad". Brussel sprouts are also always, under all circumstances, a bad taste.

Slavery is bad. It's terrible, and the slavery we perpetuated here in America was horrific. I think it's bizarre to think of it in terms of correct or incorrect behavior like you do, but that says nothing about what I think of the subject of slavery itself.

Matters of taste are subjective. Moral subjectivism feels morality is just a matter of taste as well.

Good, then you understand why your first objection, that subjectivists believe things are both true and false, is wr-wr-wr-wr-wrong. (Fonzi reference)

I think you missed the point. The therapist who is treating a moral subjectivist cannot make any progress until the moral subjectivist departs from their emotion (feeling) driven conclusion to a rational attitude about morality.

Nope. This doesn't even make sense. Cognitive psychology isn't inherently about morality. It's rational discourse about how to change your emotions. Your emotions need not be rational. You said folks can't be talked out of their irrational feelings rationally, cognitive psychology does just that.

And again, besides all that, people commit the appeal to emotion fallacy all the time. Because it works.

 

[o_mlly]

We're all over the dance floor in this exchange. Let's focus and one by one nail the items under discussion. Number one:

... and I gave you an example of an objective fact. … it is an objective fact that morals are subjective.

If you objectively claim that morals are subjective then you have a rational argument in support. What exactly is that argument?

We have to assume that you really don't have an argument, do you?

I do.

Be so kind as to now tell us your argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Number one:

No, this is number one:

Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true.

Why are you trying to distract from this claim you made? Do you understand why you were wrong?

Be so kind as to now tell us your argument.

I can't argue for something you don't understand.

 

[o_mlly]

I can't argue for something you don't understand.

"Can't argue"? But you wrote that you already posted that argument. It's a "copy/paste" job.

 

[Moral Orel]

Moral subjectivism assumes both positions on either side of a moral issue, are infallibly true.

This is false. Do you understand that?

 

[o_mlly]

This is false. Do you understand that?

I understand you feel that way.

Now, where's that argument of yours? You know, the one you say you posted that proves your claim: "... it is an objective fact that morals are subjective."

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand you feel that way.

Then we're done. Subjective morality is too advanced a topic for you.

 

[o_mlly]

Then we're done. Subjective morality is too advanced a topic for you.

Oh, dear ... don't flee the thread without at least letting us see your "phantom" argument. You know it will look like you never really had one to start.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, dear ... don't flee the thread without at least letting us see your "phantom" argument. You know it will look like you never really had one to start.

Nice try at goading. Trying to frame your deflection from your failed points as me running from an argument is cute. Get back to me if you're ever able to grasp the basic concepts of subjectivity and I'll continue the discussion. Ta!

 

[o_mlly]

Ta!

TTFN.

 

[durangodawood]

Are we having fun talking about objective-morality again?

Would I be wrong in thinking that "objective" implies something you can demonstrate, rather than taking on faith?

 

[Bradskii]

Are we having fun talking about objective-morality again?

Would I be wrong in thinking that "objective" implies something you can demonstrate, rather than taking on faith?

I might run with this waiting for my coffee.

I can't see a reason to argue against that. I was thinking that objective facts such as 'my car is red' are obviously demonstrable, but would it apply to morals..?

Let's take an example: Sex outside marriage is immoral.

Well, first up we need to agree on what 'immoral' actually means. The dictionary definition of moral is 'concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.' And I'm saying that right or wrong behaviour is behaviour that either results in a positive outcome or a negative one. So immoral behaviour is behaviour that results in a negative outcome.

So if someone thinks that sex outside marriage is immoral then they have to demonstrate it. It's not a consideration for personal opinion. It has to be wrong whether we think it wrong or not. So how can we demonstrate it? Well, we could show examples of where a one night stand led to an unwanted pregnancy or an std. But someone who argues that it's not always wrong can point to an example where a couple got together on the night before their wedding and there was no negative outcome. So it can be demonstrated in that case that it can't have been wrong (and hence immoral). Unless...

...one argues that it's immoral whatever the outcome is likely to be. Which makes no sense to me. It's saying 'This act is immoral even if there are no negative consequences'.

Now I can think of examples where there might be no negative consequences but an act can be deemed immoral in any case. Such as me shooting randomly into a crowd and missing everyone. But the immoral act wasn't injuring or killing someone. It was the act of firing into a crowd. So if the intent is to cause a negative outcome then we can class that as bein wrong, because the intent is demonstrable.

But unless there is intent to cause a negative outcome in having sex before marriage then it's only in retrospect that we can say it was wrong. Which is not to say that we can't advise against it because of very real potential negative outcomes. But that in itself makes it an unwise option in some circumstances rather than it always being a wrong one. Or one that some may class as immoral.

Ah, my coffee. Thanks.

 

[durangodawood]

I might run with this waiting for my coffee.

I can't see a reason to argue against that. I was thinking that objective facts such as 'my car is red' are obviously demonstrable, but would it apply to morals..?

Let's take an example: Sex outside marriage is immoral.

Well, first up we need to agree on what 'immoral' actually means. The dictionary definition of moral is 'concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.' And I'm saying that right or wrong behaviour is behaviour that either results in a positive outcome or a negative one. So immoral behaviour is behaviour that results in a negative outcome.

So if someone thinks that sex outside marriage is immoral then they have to demonstrate it. It's not a consideration for personal opinion. It has to be wrong whether we think it wrong or not. So how can we demonstrate it? Well, we could show examples of where a one night stand led to an unwanted pregnancy or an std. But someone who argues that it's not always wrong can point to an example where a couple got together on the night before their wedding and there was no negative outcome. So it can be demonstrated in that case that it can't have been wrong (and hence immoral). Unless...

...one argues that it's immoral whatever the outcome is likely to be. Which makes no sense to me. It's saying 'This act is immoral even if there are no negative consequences'.

Now I can think of examples where there might be no negative consequences but an act can be deemed immoral in any case. Such as me shooting randomly into a crowd and missing everyone. But the immoral act wasn't injuring or killing someone. It was the act of firing into a crowd. So if the intent is to cause a negative outcome then we can class that as bein wrong, because the intent is demonstrable.

But unless there is intent to cause a negative outcome in having sex before marriage then it's only in retrospect that we can say it was wrong. Which is not to say that we can't advise against it because of very real potential negative outcomes. But that in itself makes it an unwise option in some circumstances rather than it always being a wrong one. Or one that some may class as immoral.

Ah, my coffee. Thanks.

Well that my sense of what "objective morality " should mean: rules derived from the observable facts of how our actions affect things we naturally value.

But there's this other mostly bogus definition of "objective morality" which is like: rules revealed to us from a supernatural source. Sure, they are proposed to be independent of human subjectivity. Buuut, since they cant be demonstrated at all, they are on an equal footing with personal preference.

 

[Moral Orel]

And I'm saying that right or wrong behaviour is behaviour that either results in a positive outcome or a negative one.

What makes something a positive outcome or a negative outcome?

 

[Moral Orel]

But there's this other mostly bogus definition of "objective morality" which is like: rules revealed to us from a supernatural source. Sure, they are proposed to be independent of human subjectivity. Buuut, since they cant be demonstrated at all, they are on an equal footing with personal preference.

They're on an equal footing with personal preference because it's still based on the personal preferences of a subject. All minds are subjects, human or not. Objective morality via a god is exactly the same as subjective morality except that folks defer their preferences to someone else's preferences.

 

[durangodawood]

They're on an equal footing with personal preference because it's still based on the personal preferences of a subject. All minds are subjects, human or not. Objective morality via a god is exactly the same as subjective morality except that folks defer their preferences to someone else's preferences.

Human behavior can be studied like any other animal behavior, and we can make statements about certain observable facts about what they value as a species.

Thats not to deny that some values we hold are personal and idiosyncratic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Human behavior can be studied like any other animal behavior, and we can make statements about certain observable facts about what they value as a species.

Thats not to deny that some values we hold are personal and idiosyncratic.

Aww, come on, man. You and I have been down that road before, and it doesn't address what I posted (a critique of objective morality via a god).

 

[Bradskii]

What makes something a positive outcome or a negative outcome?

It'll be relative to the person making the call. But a positive outcome is generally one which will result in a preferential outcome to the person making that call. So if someone burgles my house and gets away with a chunk of money then it's a positive outcome for him and a negative outcome for me.

In relation to the sex before marriage scenario, from the point of view of the participents there could be a mixture of both or entirely one or the other.

As a disinterested observer, if I have to make a call as to whether the act was right or wrong then I'd say that both outcomes need to be preferential to the participents involved with no negative outcome to anyone else. Whilst accepting that 'no negative outcome to anyone else' could be a bone of contention. But I'd want to see a specific example of that. 'I don't think that's right' or 'It is written' will be discounted as being a negative outcome. I'd need something a little more concrete than that.

 

[Moral Orel]

It'll be relative to the person making the call. But a positive outcome is generally one which will result in a preferential outcome to the person making that call. So if someone burgles my house and gets away with a chunk of money then it's a positive outcome for him and a negative outcome for me.

So it's all based on what individuals prefer? How does that differ from subjective morality?