Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of the things you do call moral, you never call them moral because you prefer them.
Actually I'm being deliberately vague here...one can judge a behavior as "good" without expressing approval (for example, one can see teaching a child to read as good but disapprove of the methodology).
[...]
This is what I think is the interesting part. Do you express every judgment to everyone? Of course not...in real life, you inevitably keep certain judgments entirely to yourself. You have no utility in sharing them. You probably understand how rare they are, the reaction they get, so there's no real utility in sharing them. To do so invites conflict.
Again, it's better to look at this as a phenomenon arising from social interaction. Imagine a bunch of people who are constantly asking each other how something makes them, and reacting to each other. By finding others who see actions similarly....you can determine the degree to which you and the group agree (and thereby decrease the likelihood you will transgress against the morals of the group) and you can also begin to describe the nature of the behavior you and your in-group agree upon.
That's how we might say a moral "framework" is "constructed". This is mostly done by 3rd party observers, as 1st and 2nd party actors are almost certainly going to paint themselves in the most sympathetic light.
1. An assignment of value to the act, either "positive" or "negative,"
2. The emotional reaction that results from the act (?), and
3. "...to the degree of social utility to other parties" (?)
Okay, so you've pointed to three aspects of morality:
You prefer to leave (1) vague, you see
(2) as something which precedes a moral judgment, and you see
(3) as a condition for sharing your thoughts with other people.
You asked me why I thought it would be better to talk about moral judgments rather than morality.
On my view it is more precise.
On my view one's morality is just the set of moral judgments that one has formed, whether real or possible, concrete or general.
If I am correct in this then (1) is the crucial piece of the puzzle.
(2) simply explains why and when moral judgments occur (although it assumes that moral judgments are emotion-elicited).
(3) simply provides the condition when we decide our private moral judgment should be made public,
but on my view it is already a moral judgment even before it is made public
(although it might be challenged and revised once it enters the public sphere).
So the central, intrinsic nature of moral judgments revolves around (1) rather than (2) or (3).
I think (1) needs to be less vague. In #201 you said that we must "clear up the ambiguity of the language."
You implied that "right" and "wrong" are too vague, and instead substituted "positive" and "negative." Then when I asked what those terms actually mean, you said, "I'm being deliberately vague here."
So what does it mean to consider something "positive" or "negative"?
And are we assigning this value to the moral act or the moral judgment? I only ask because in #201 you oddly claimed that the value is assigned to the moral judgment, whereas I would think that it is primarily assigned to the moral act that is being judged. Finally, to come back to the OP, are "positive" and "negative" reducible to preference, or not?
That was something you already said way back in the beginning when you ruled out number (2).Honestly, I've never really thought about it. And for me to say one way or another would involve more thought than I'm able to give at the moment.
That was something you already said way back in the beginning when you ruled out number (2).
If you aren't into responding more now, that's cool. If you never feel like jumping back in, that's cool too.
Let me spell out the problems associated with the options for you. For (2) most people recognize right away that morality becomes totally arbitrary if it is determined by personal preference. Most folks can't accept that. The problem with (1) is that what is good has to be intrinsically good. And it's impossible to justify rationally that something is intrinsically good. So things must be good/evil for no reason at all.
No reason or arbitrary reasons, those are the choices. As a Moral Subjectivist, I've accepted that (2) is true, as unsatisfying as it is. I don't vote in my own polls, though.
There are plenty of things that you call morally good that you personally don't like to do. But as long as you think it's better that some folk do those things, you prefer those things over a lack of those things.There are plenty of things I can describe as morally good which I do not prefer.
There are plenty of things that you call morally good that you personally don't like to do.
No one "had to do"? But I bet you prefer that what "has to get done" gets done, dontcha?Actually, I can think of morally good things that I prefer no one had to do.
Greed is a subset of self indulgence
No one "had to do"? But I bet you prefer that what "has to get done" gets done, dontcha?
I think the word you need is avarice, rather than greed, which the early church fathers considered to be one of the seven deadly sins.
Best wishes, Strivax.
So what?But I'd prefer if no one had to.
So what?
Nope. No act is necessary without a conditional. That's why I put your "has to be done" in quotes. You need to eat in order to live. You eat because you prefer to be alive than dead. You don't need to live; you don't need to eat.So you're conflating acceptance of the necessity of certain acts with "preferring" them.
Nope.
No act is necessary without a conditional.
Nope.Yup.
I can't even unpack all the things that are wrong with this. Try harder.Then when you said this...
Let me spell out the problems associated with the options for you. For (2) most people recognize right away that morality becomes totally arbitrary if it is determined by personal preference
You were incorrect.
Preferences aren't arbitrary. They are conditional.
Congratulations, you just disproved your own conception of morality.
Nope.
I can't even unpack all the things that are wrong with this. Try harder.
Meh, I've already been explaining it in the other two or three threads on objective v subjective morality for months now. I don't have the patience for amateur hour anymore.Sure sure....you "understand" the "things" that are "wrong" with my post lol.
You just can't explain it...and you think I need to try harder.
It not hard to recognize this dodge. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong or anything....but you did just prove morality isn't arbitrary.
So as long as you don't keep pushing the idea....I won't keep exposing it's flaws.
Meh, I've already been explaining it in the other two or three threads on objective v subjective morality for months now.
I don't have the patience for amateur hour anymore.
You used to be more useful for a bit of entertainment back in the day.
Morals =/= preferences =/= needs. And no one said they did.
When you stop dreaming up arguments for me to make, get back to me.
You've got a quote of me claiming that "morals = preferences = needs"? Let's see it......That wasn't a quote from your post?
I'm not one of those "don't label me" types. But I am too lazy to research all of them to see what fits specifically. Moral non-realism is a broad enough category. I'm in there somewhere.You appear to be taking a secular humanist position.
I'm here to argue for sport. But if your "arguments" require me to respond with things like "that isn't what I wrote" and "that's not what that word means", then it isn't an argument anymore. That's teaching someone to read. No thanks.If you genuinely have held this conversation with others a couple of posts before now...just link me to the relevant page.
Otherwise I'm sure you know how this looks. It's like when the Christians used to tell me they had a personal relationship with Jesus....then I'd ask them to describe it.
Suddenly they don't have any time for the thing they'll drone on about post after post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?