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.
Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?But this still doesn't negate that subjective preferences don't translate to morality. This is a well known false anology of how morality works in a normative way.
You cannot be sacked for liking Star Wars. You can be sacked for acting immoral. So this shows that using subjective thinking doesn't work for morality so any comparison is a false analogy when it comes to how morals work.
How is it a Red Herring. I am not using this to negate the logical arguement of P & Q. I acknowledge its logic. I am posing this as a seperate arguement on its own merit that has not been addressed. That is using preferences or feelings to explain morality is a false analogy.Red Herring. Do you understand why that specific argument fails?
If you present your arguments one at a time and stop jumping between them constantly, we will knock each and every one of them down.
I am not using this to negate the logical arguement of P & Q. I acknowledge its logic.
That's the Red Herring. We haven't settled the argument you already presented yet. We're not moving on to a new one. Posing a separate argument from the one we're already discussing is a distraction from the argument we're discussing. That's what a Red Herring is.I am posing this as a seperate arguement on its own merit that has not been addressed.
Yes thats why I said I understand the logic. P & Q can be assigned any example as the logic still stands."Acknowledge its logic"? It is invalid. Kylie and I both demonstrated that with separate examples. Do you understand that argument is invalid and why it is invalid?
As I acknowledged the 1st arguement doesn't stand up I am now using another arguement. ThereforeThat's the Red Herring. We haven't settled the argument you already presented yet. We're not moving on to a new one. Posing a separate argument from the one we're already discussing is a distraction from the argument we're discussing. That's what a Red Herring is.
Yes thats why I said I understand the logic. P & Q can be assigned any example as the logic still stands.
You have a weird way of phrasing things. Does the logic stand, or does the logic not stand? The argument is invalid.As I acknowledged the 1st arguement doesn't stand up I am now using another arguement.
Murder, violating a child, rape, domestic abuse . . . I would say these are wrong in themselves. But, of course, we might have a problem deciding when something really is murder or some kind of abuse. And I guess that can depend on why something is done.Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
Like I said I am not the best at Grammar. Yes when Kylies example is used for P & Q the logic stands up yet it presents a false outcome. I see what you mean and that is what I was trying to say.You have a weird way of phrasing things. Does the logic stand, or does the logic not stand? The argument is invalid.
Look I appreciate you spending time and helping me understand logical statements. It cuts through things and helps establish pretty quickly whether a claim stands up or not. This is part of my frustration in not being able to express things better.What we learned from this argument failing is that the way we talk about things is not evidence for how things really are. In the future, you won't post any more arguments of the sort that, "But we talk about morality like it's objective..." because you now know that is an invalid argument.
See, you don't get that your argument failed, or why, and what that means. You're still claiming there's something significant about the way we speak about things. If you understood why your argument failed you wouldn't be repeating the claim of that argument. What we say is not indicative of what is really the case.We use language to express morality and as morality is a normative system its truth comes from how people really speak.
This is why I think language is important when it comes to morality. The words murder, violation and abuse already have a moral meaning in the words themselves attached by society as to being wrong. When someone says a person abused a women or child they mean they did something wrong objectively. The qualification is in the word when applied morally.But, of course, we might have a problem deciding when something really is murder or some kind of abuse.
Yes this is appealing to a fact or truth beyond our subjective thinking. So we say the earth is round as a fact. We don't say I prefer that the earth is round or that I feel that the earth is round. That doesn't make sense. So our objective language reflects what really is and doesnt sound like how we speak subjectively.See, you don't get that your argument failed, or why, and what that means. You're still claiming there's something significant about the way we speak about things. If you understood why your argument failed you wouldn't be repeating the claim of that argument. What we say is not indicative of what is really the case.
We speak about objective things using objective language. The Earth is round.
Yes but that can only happen when we are referring to ourself. It is a fact that you think its good. But that is not a fact beyond yourself. You don't use language that says Chocolate ice cream is good as a fact beyond yourself that applies to everyone like the fact the earth is round.We speak about subjective things using objective language. Chocolate ice cream is good.
Well how do you explain the differences in how people speak about subjective preferences and feelings and something being objective as explained above. Aren't they real differences that we live out.People speaking about things with objective language tells us absolutely nothing about how things really are.
Yes, it is how we speak about subjective things. This is a false premise.So our objective language reflects what really is and doesnt sound like how we speak subjectively.
There aren't differences, and that's the point.Well how do you explain the differences in how people speak about subjective preferences and feelings and something being objective as explained above. Aren't they real differences that we live out.
But this only applies to the subject and therefore is not noramtive. Try saying "Chocolate ice cream is wrong" as this normative and is how we speak morally. Good is a subjective term.Yes, it is how we speak about subjective things. This is a false premise.
"Chocolate ice cream is good". People say that all the time, and taste in flavors is subjective.
Simply using the word "is" makes it objective language. That makes it possible to evaluate the sentence as true or false, ergo, it's objective language. Either it "is", or it "is not".
Then why can't we say a preference for chocolate icecream is normatively wrong or sack someone for liking chocolate icecream like we can say with moral issues.There aren't differences, and that's the point.
This is why I think language is important when it comes to morality. The words murder, violation and abuse already have a moral meaning in the words themselves attached by society as to being wrong. When someone says a person abused a women or child they mean they did something wrong objectively. The qualification is in the word when applied morally.
Wrong. The sentence "Chocolate ice cream is good" mentions no subject.But this only applies to the subject and therefore is not noramtive.
It is the expression of the subject and "good" is a subjective term. How does you saying ice-cream is "good" equate to some normative statement beyond you that applies to everyone. It only applies to you. But if you say "icecream is wrong" which is a normative statement it doesn't work.Wrong. The sentence "Chocolate ice cream is good" mentions no subject.
Not sure what a Red Herring logical fallacy has to do with how certain words express a moral statement like person X was abused. This is not a subjective expression. It states "abuse" has taken place. People can argue what sort of abuse or what severity of abuse but still the person expressing the statement has already made a value judgement by using the word abuse.Language is important. We wont list the ways.
Correct usage is one-
What Is the Logical Fallacy Known as a 'Red Herring'?
As an esl student i was taught to find the fewest words with which to express an idea. Too many words shows a lack of discipline and, obscures meaning.
Sorry, I am just clarifying that you don't think there is an objective determination for this matter.
If you say there is no objective way to determine what is the right or wrong thing to do, what is a better way to behave than other ways to behave then it follows that you cannot know which way to behave in this matter.
I realize I have repeatedly asked you this but each time I am clarifying your position to be sure thats what you mean because its very important as to the implications of that position as pointed out above.
I guess its the same reasons I have to keep telling you that social conditioning doesnt mean morals are subjective.
What do you mean you will have to wait until you are in that situation.
But as I said its not just about the majority blindly agreeing to something they are actually saying there is no other option but the one we agree on. There is no room for subjective opinions as all opinions are wrong except the one we agree on.
Thats more than just subjective morality as under subjective morality no sibngle view holds any weight because as you have claimed there are no objective morals so no view is better than another. Yet this majority claim that there is no room for subjectivity. They are saying if anyone diagrees with us they are mistaken.
Thats a logiocal fallacy. As I have and also others on this thread have said it doesnt make any difference. OK so let me ask you how would a less extreme example make a difference.
Yes it does as moral matters are a matter of "right and wrong" unlike subjective matters which is a matter of personal opinion or feelings which can never be wrong in a normative way like morality is.
When we speak about moral matters we make statemenst about something being wrong beyond our subjective thinking.
We don't say "In my opinion" or "I feel that something is wrong" but I could be mistaken. We say that the behaviour is wrong as a matter of fact or truth beyond our personal opinions.
And morality needs to be that way as when we want to stop others behavig badly we need to have a solid base to refute their immoral behaviour. Like I said its more than people just agreeing. They are actually taking an objective position which only allows 1 option and rejects any subjective thinking. Thats more than just agreeing. Thats actually enacting objective morality. Thats endorsing objective morality and declaring there is no other option but to take an objective position.
Yes in your analogy. Your analogy works well for subjective thinking like preferences for TV shows because there is no true or false determination for preferences or feelings. But it cannot translate to morality. As you said moral issues require a true or false determination. Already we see that subjective thinking fails as we cannot determine a true or false answer. You are making the assumption that subjective morality translates to moral issues when it doesn't and I have shown independent support for this.
So lets see how applying how morality works to to your scenario. Morality is a normative system we can say some behaviour is truely wrong beyond the subjective preference. People acting immoral are ostrasized from the community or their social group, they can lose their jobs, companies lose their sponsorships, people will protest in the streets and to governments against immoral behaviour as we have seen with abuse of women or BLM. We have to have some shared moral grounds to be able to declare something is truely wrong.
But none of this can be translated to subjective preferences for TV shows. If we put your wrong analogy to moral system we would have to say that anyone who likes Star Wars should get the sack, companies supporting Star Wars should lose all credibility and sponsors, we should ostrasize those who like Star Wars and we should march in the streets and petition the government against this evil scurge. lol. Even if people think Darth Vadar is a menice.
Bringing things back to the OP what I would like to know is how can western cultures impose their morality onto other cultures when there is no absolute right and wrong. This seems to show that despite the claim of relative morality that each culture lives by their own moral truths it seems in reality this is impossible as morals truths cross borders.
Look at the way nations like the US, Australia, Britain condemn the immoral behaviour of say African tribes or MIddle Eastern cultures. They act like their moral view is a truth that applies to every nation.
How can this be. How can they make cultures they have little to do with and have never lived in thier relative situation then say I know whats best for you 5,000 miles away.
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?