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.
No, it simply doesn't require a moral choice. It's like me claiming that your choice to wear a red shirt instead of a blue one means that you must think that red tastes better.He isn't neutral about whether its "good" or "bad" because he prefers it himself. It's "good to him", as it were.
So theres nothing about the judgement "moral" thats different from the judgement "tasty"?He isn't neutral about whether its "good" or "bad" because he prefers it himself. It's "good to him", as it were.
Your response is a non sequitur. Why you prefer one thing over another is inconsequential.No, it simply doesn't require a moral choice. It's like me claiming that your choice to wear a red shirt instead of a blue one means that you must think that red tastes better.
It's a non sequitur.
They're both attributes by which we differentiate things, but not every attribute applies in every circumstance.So theres nothing about the judgement "moral" thats different from the judgement "tasty"?
You seem to think that every instance in which one makes a choice of any kind equates to a moral choice. This simply isn't true. Most choices aren't moral choices.Your response is a non sequitur. Why you prefer one thing over another is inconsequential.
There are indeed choices that are based wholly or partially on their moral attributes. But not every choice falls into that category, just as every choice isn't based upon how something tastes.You seem to think that some behaviors belong in a special category that we call "morality"
Maybe go back to the beginning of all this and reread my initial post. I said "in the same way" not "for the same reason". Untangling this strawman that you claim I said morals are food flavors is just too tiresome.There are indeed choices that are based wholly or partially on their moral attributes. But not every choice falls into that category, just as every choice isn't based upon how something tastes.
What you think the "correct" thing to do is based on an appeal to your senses. Harming others is "wrong" because it feels bad.Moral choices are based on what you think is correct to do.
Aesthetic choices are based on what appeals to your senses.
How did we get to the point where those must be mushed together as if they are the exact same idea?
For the record, I voted "no". I am not neutral about the way I or others behave the same way I'm not neutral about whether I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream. And if that's all you and Mac are saying, I agree.
I can prefer to behave a certain way, and I can prefer that others behave a certain way without any sort of belief that they must behave that way or that there is any correct way to behave.
Allow me to rephrase your analogy.I am not neutral about the way I or others behave the same way I'm not neutral about whether I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream.
...It's possible to have a personal preference concerning people's behavior without elevating that preference to the status of a moral standard.
You're right I haven't. But I'm open to suggestions.I don't think you've defined what you mean by moral and immoral.
I'm not sure that I am either. Give me some time, I'll think about it.It's not clear what you mean by those terms or whether you are using them in a meaningful way.
As @zippy has pointed out a couple times, you've claimed a distinction you have yet to define or describe or illuminate at all.But there's a logical disconnect between saying that certain behaviors are, or aren't preferred, and saying that they are, or aren't moral.
Words like "ought" and "should" and "good" and "bad" and "moral" and "immoral" are all (technically) nonsense because they can't be used as intended to form true statements. Sure, we use them colloquially, but we have to translate them as we hear them. For instance, any statement of the form "N is A" where N is a noun and A is an adjective, grammatically, means that A is a property or quality of N. Correct?@Moral Orel is the poster on CF who has most questioned morality, but he has at the same time denied the distinction between a "moral" act and a commonplace act. Thus in challenging moral realists on whether their morality has any grounding in reality, he has eventually come to the position that no 'oughts' exist--moral or otherwise. In my opinion Orel holds an uncommon variety of moral neutrality insofar as he holds that there are no rationally grounded 'oughts', and that he himself recognizes no normative obligations. I think both of those ideas are false, and this is one possible sidebar since it seems to be based on the same mistaken notion of morality that drives MNP. It seems to me that the only person who might be morally neutral is the person who does not act at all, which is considered pathological.
Words like "ought" and "should" and "good" and "bad" and "moral" and "immoral" are all (technically) nonsense because they can't be used as intended to form true statements. Sure, we use them colloquially, but we have to translate them as we hear them. For instance, any statement of the form "N is A" where N is a noun and A is an adjective, grammatically, means that A is a property or quality of N. Correct?
So If I say that "Chocolate ice cream is good" that statement claims that "goodness" is a quality or property of the chocolate ice cream. But we all know that when people say that what they mean is "I personally enjoy the flavor of chocolate ice cream" because it's a subjective statement and subjective statements aren't true without reference to the subject. In other words, they just aren't true. So let's look at those statements.
Chocolate ice cream is good.
I enjoy chocolate ice cream.
In the first we are claiming that a noun has a certain property. In the second we are claiming that a noun does a verb. Not the same thing at all.
And yet I still say I haven't escaped moral neutrality. No action is right or wrong, yet my preferences for how people behave keeps me from being neutral. It's a bias. Not good enough for you?
You prefer that your neighbor refrain from mowing his yard in the early morning. Zippy would say that because you hold that preference, that you believe your neighbor "ought" to wait until later to mow, but I say "Hogwash!" to that.
I don't think it relates as well as you think it does. The problem with that post is that the implicit premise is "You ought to experience things you enjoy". How it relates to this is that your P1 is already false. A thing is not "good". We enjoy a thing.I think I responded to this very idea in post #430 of "Where is the Objective Morality?" You didn't offer a response.
No.Your profession represents an alternative form of neutrality, but your bias and your actions are at odds with that profession. No?
A What causes preferences is as varied as the preferences themselves. I'm not sure how you want me to answer such a broad question.Some questions: A Why are you biased? B Is it bad to be biased? C Is there a way to remove your bias?
What's unreasonable about it? To use your example, if you prefer blondes, then surely you prefer that women die their hair blonde, but you don't believe they ought to die their hair just because you prefer it. I like red-heads myself.Much of this comes back to whether or not the proposition I presented in post #129 is reasonable:
- "I can prefer that others behave a certain way without any sort of belief that they ought to behave that way."
I don't think it relates as well as you think it does. The problem with that post is that the implicit premise is "You ought to experience things you enjoy". How it relates to this is that your P1 is already false. A thing is not "good". We enjoy a thing.
The issue here is that Subjectivists claim "what people really mean" when they say "Murder is wrong" is "Boo murder!". It's an expression of dislike, or distaste. So, I'm all about making statements true. Phrase things correctly as true statements that express what we mean instead of this clunky "to me" subjective speak.
Chocolate ice cream is good. <-- False.
I enjoy chocolate ice cream. <-- True.
Their status as "false" and "true", respectively, is objective fact. Insisting on muddy speech is starting to look like obfuscation to me.
A What causes preferences is as varied as the preferences themselves. I'm not sure how you want me to answer such a broad question.
B No. Things aren't "bad".
C Some preferences, yes.
What's unreasonable about it? To use your example, if you prefer blondes, then surely you prefer that women die...
What's unreasonable about it?
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?