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.

 

[o_mlly]

What inconsistency? It feels wrong to me, hence I judge. I will act upon on it too, through telling them to stop, ...

Following your posts, apparently you claim to have never judged your immediate feelings to be in error. Good for you.

 

[Fervent]

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.

You claim it's just a subjective preference, but then you act as if it is an objective issue. You aren't consistent in maintaining that it's just your subjective preference, because you act as if it is well and truly wrong not just distasteful to you.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

You claim it's just a subjective preference, but then you act as if it is an objective issue. You aren't consistent in maintaining that it's just your subjective preference, because you act as if it is well and truly wrong not just distasteful to you.

I act on it because it is distasteful to me.

 

[partinobodycular]

You claim it's just a subjective preference, but then you act as if it is an objective issue. You aren't consistent in maintaining that it's just your subjective preference, because you act as if it is well and truly wrong not just distasteful to you.

That's because it IS an objective issue. It's as if we metaphorically put everyone in a room and let them fight it out, and morals is what you get when you remove the dead bodies. It's what you're ALWAYS going to get, and it has nothing to do with God, unless you consider nature to be God.

So it becomes a self perpetuating fact simply through the process of elimination, because all the other options fail.

FYI, that's the exact same way that ALL objective truths come to exist, because all the other options failed.

 

[Bradskii]

It's as if we metaphorically put everyone in a room and let them fight it out, and morals is what you get when you remove the dead bodies. It's what you're ALWAYS going to get, and it has nothing to do with God, unless you consider nature to be God.

So it becomes a self perpetuating fact simply through the process of elimination, because all the other options fail.

Exactly right. It's what works. What doesn't is, as you said, the dead bodies. And what works is what we describe, rather obviously, as good.

It's an entirely natural process.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's an entirely natural process.

It's essentially the anthropomorphic principle applied to morals. If the universe wasn't just so, then we wouldn't be here, and if morals weren't just so, then we wouldn't be here either. It's not magic, it's science.

 

[Fervent]

I act on it because it is distasteful to me.

you act as if your preferences are objective and in need of enforcement. If you were consistent in maintaining that they were subjective preferences and nothing more, you'd have no reason to act because there's no reason anyone should prefer your preferences.

 

[Fervent]

That's because it IS an objective issue. It's as if we metaphorically put everyone in a room and let them fight it out, and morals is what you get when you remove the dead bodies. It's what you're ALWAYS going to get, and it has nothing to do with God, unless you consider nature to be God.

Just blatantly invoking the naturalistic fallacy, huh?

So it becomes a self perpetuating fact simply through the process of elimination, because all the other options fail.

Quite the assertion.

FYI, that's the exact same way that ALL objective truths come to exist, because all the other options failed.

Now you're colonizing epistemology? One normative topic at a time.

 

[Bradskii]

It's essentially the anthropomorphic principle applied to morals. If the universe wasn't just so, then we wouldn't be here, and if morals weren't just so, then we wouldn't be here either. It's not magic, it's science.

An example I've used before is incest. It's universally thought to be wrong (including by me, but that's just at an emotional level). Because those who thought it was OK ended up with descendents who had genetic problems and didn't procreate very well. Leaving the rest of us. If biology had worked so that having sex with a stranger caused the problems and sex with a close relative was safe, then hopping into bed with a random stranger would be thought of as disgusting as having sex with your sister.

 

[partinobodycular]

Just blatantly invoking the naturalistic fallacy, huh?

Yeah, ain't it funny how the puddle always manages to fit the hole?

Quite the assertion.

Well lets take a trip back to the ancient Middle East, wherein slavery was perfectly moral. A perfect example of the puddle fitting the hole.

Now you're colonizing epistemology? One normative topic at a time.

As you wish. I wouldn't want to stress you out with fallacious ideas.