Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

The closest definition of analytic I found that might be relevant, is that an analytic proposition is a proposition that is true because of the words it contains. So what I draw from that is that you believe that objectivity is a necessary part of morality by the word itself?

Yes, any discussion of morality must presuppose objectivity in some sense. If the preferences are simply cognitive or subjective, then there's no point in exchanging ideas because there is no way to establish any reason for preference.

Even with only personal preferences there will be attempts to appeal and argument, sometimes they will sway the one being talked to sometimes not. Sometimes society will step in and take a side and enforce a solution. Even with an absolute lawgiver with power to enforce its laws the only thing we have is still something imposing its will. It is only a difference in degrees not in kind.

There's nothing to argue if it's just a private preference. So to argue/appeal is to adopt an attitude that there is an objective reason for prefering one to another rather than them simply being subjective states. Which is why I say your position is inconsistent, not simply arbitrary.

 

[Fervent]

This is still complete inversion of the OP question. @doubtingmerle asked if absolutism is necessary, you ask if it can be omitted.

i'm aware that it's an inversion, as I said it's two sides to the same coin.

It is sad that you don't understand @doubtingmerle 's original question, because "what you can get away with" was not the point or relevant.

You accuse me of failing to understand, while my point with that statement seems to have gone completely over your head.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There's nothing to argue if it's just a private preference. So to argue/appeal is to adopt an attitude that there is an objective reason for prefering one to another rather than them simply being subjective states. Which is why I say your position is inconsistent, not simply arbitrary.

Why? Arguments and appeals can be put forth to influence others feelings. If feelings at least in part are influenced by facts, one can put forth an argument that highlights the facts that one feel is relevant in hope that the disagreement is because an misunderstanding of facts.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If you reflect in order to understand (an operation of intellect and reason, not emotion) then your emotion is merely instrumental and not the end of your determination of your moral code.

My feelings are of course influenced by facts in the world. The things I have feelings about most often come to me through my senses.

? What then do you use to discern a thing to be beautiful or not. Do you hold that there is a difference between enjoyable and admirable beauty?

No difference.

 

[Fervent]

Why? Arguments and appeals can be put forth to influence others feelings.

arguments imply that there's a valid reason for one to be preferable over another.

If feelings at least in part are influenced of facts, one can put forth an argument that highlights the facts that one feel is relevant in hope that the disagreement is because an misunderstanding of facts.

If the feelings are just feelings, then there can be no relationship to facts. This is where your inconsistency beccomes apparent.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

arguments imply that there's a valid reason for one to be preferable over another.

If the feelings are just feelings, then there can be no relationship to facts. This is where your inconsistency beccomes apparent.

When I see someone hit a kid (fact) I feel moral outrage (feeling), what do you mean that there is no relationship?

 

[Fervent]

When I see someone hit a kid (fact) I feel moral outrage (feeling), what do you mean that there is no relationship?

if you are consitent, then your feelings are nothing but a subjective preference with no relationship to the facts that elicit them. In order for there to be a relationship, there must be something objective about the fact that makes the moral feelings appropriate.

In other words, it must be the wrongness of the act that you witness that elicits the moral outrage, or else your moral outrage is simply coincidental with the hitting of the kid.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

In other words, it must be the wrongness of the act that you witness that elicits the moral outrage, or else your moral outrage is simply coincidental with the hitting of the kid.

Yes, to me it is wrong to hit a kid because it invoke a feeling in me (subjectively). The feeling is what makes me determine that it is wrong. But I don't make any claims that everybody do feel the same.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, to me it is wrong to hit a kid because it invoke a feeling in me (subjectively). The feeling is what makes me determine that it is wrong. But I don't make any claims that everybody do feel the same.

Seems to me you're trying to explain away the inconsistency. If it is just a subjective preference, then how can it be "wrong"? It's just distasteful to you, but maybe someone else's preference is to abuse kids physically. Who are you to judge?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Seems to me you're trying to explain away the inconsistency. If it is just a subjective preference, then how can it be "wrong"? It's just distasteful to you, but maybe someone else's preference is to abuse kids physically. Who are you to judge?

What inconsistency? It feels wrong to me, hence I judge. I will act upon on it too, through telling them to stop, if they persist I'll try to get in the way, if they still persist I'll call the police.