Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:19 pm
Not sure what difference that makes. It's our decision-making that (ultimately) produces moral; or immoral outcomes.
Or just 'outcomes'. Some outcomes I hate, some I merely prefer, some I love and so on.
And some of those outcomes you consider moral and immoral, no?
Because you claim to consider the category called "morality" to be non-empty.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
You're incorrect.
The only evidence I would accept as evidence for my incorrectness is you commintting to your position with actions.
Kill yourself.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Could you please demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.
That's literally what I am doing right now.
I have tasked you with demonstrating that you actually believe what you say (I don't think you do, but I am being charitable).
If you believe that your continued survival is not objectively good then you would've killed yourself by now.
Why are you still taking to me instead of demonstrating that you truly believe what you say you believe?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
I like life, no thanks.
Oh, so you objectively prefer NOT dying to dying? No surprise there.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
So, if two groups have members that do the same things, there is no difference between them?
In so far as the pragmatists are concerned - a difference in language is no difference at all.
Is it really such a long stretch? Re-describing yourself as a "moral realist"; or a "moral anti-realist" doesn't change your likes and preferences - only your narrative about yourself.
It's identity politics 101 stuff. You are just trying to be different from the rest without doing anything different from the rest.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Explain how this contradicts our beliefs. Are you saying moral ideas are the only motivators? Lay out the argument.
"Contradictions", "arguments" - so much baggage and connotation. I don't engage in that mess.
I am pointing out the fact that re-describing yourself philosophically doesn't change your actual preferences about living and dying, health and sickness, poverty and wealth, education and ignorance, democracy vs tyranny, slavery vs freedom etc. etc. ect.
When faced with those choices - you will choose what's best for you. And what's best for you isn't being dead, poor, sick, oppressed and ignorant.
Irrespective of your philosophical identity.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Well, no. We obviously make different choices or you wouldn't be arguing with us.
And I am not arguing... because the game is rigged and carries connotation/baggage. And also because I only play by my rules.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
And further there would be difference in how I would talk to someone about behavior I didn't like, for example. This would likely change outcomes in many instances. So, you are incorrect.
Uhuh. So you would correct somebody wronging you. But you don't call that "moral behaviour".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
I would guess that nihilists are more likely to kill themselves.
No, they would much rather tell you that they are nihilists (and present lengthy arguments/reasons for why) than actually die.
They just want to be heard/understood and appreciated, you see. Like most humans.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
But your argument seems to be if I like living then I am wrong about moral realism.
What you are wrong about is the realism/anti-realism distinction. Both moral realists and moral anti-realists are still moralists.
And given the moral choice of living; or dying - they both make the exact same one. Their values are the same, despite their differences in meta-narratives.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
you're going to convince me that follows, you'll need to make an argument (or link me to where you made it) that demonstrates that.
There's no link or argument required - observe yourself making the choices that you are making.
Then tell us how a moral realist would've made different moral choices to you. If you can't do that - chahces are you have a shared value-system, despite your differences in meta-narrative.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
I do prefer it, yes. That doesn't mean moral realism is correct.
I have no idea what you mean as "correct". What yardstick for correctness are you using? Accurate description of reality?
That's a bunk game! All coherent descriptions are accurate in so far as they cohere; but there is no way to test if they correspond.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
And now I have asserted that it does. Why does it change my philosophical designation? Because I don't have the same belief the moral realists do.
Abstract beliefs result in concrete actions.
If "different" abstract beliefs produce the same moral choices - how different is that belief really?
2+2 is different to 9-5 but they are both 4.
In logic it's called
confluence.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
OK, so what you mean by objectivity is what suits a specific individual in this case.
What I mean by "objective" and "objectivity" is any property which belongs to the object under consideration.
There are two objects under consideration. Both have a property called mass. Two objects need not have the same mass, but their mass is objective.
There are two objects under consideration. Both have a property called "icecream flavour preference". Two objects need not have the same preference; but their preference is objective.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
So if we were dealing with the abortion issue, if I say that I prefer to have the option of safe abortions, this is an objectively moral position. And someone who does not want me to have that option is objective correct also,
then we are, yes, just quibbling over words. I think you are using the word objectively oddly, implicitly, not in your example.
I am using the word "objectively" precisely as I am using it - to report on objective properties of objects.
Two objects have an objective property called "stance on abortion". When those stances differ - we have a bunch of mechanisms for conflict resolution.
And then this whole "natural selection" (of ideas) things happens... Arguing, democratising, war.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Oh, good, you think we don't disagree.
I prefer to think of what's going on here as a continual transformation from an unknown state to mutual agreement. Irrespective of what you want; and especially if you insist on disagreement for its own sake.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:40 pm
Can I take that as a 'no' then?
Maybe.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am
So, you're a mind reader?
Nothing like that. It's just a prediction based on my understanding of game theory.
Philosophers keep the debate open for 2500 years. It's called demonic non-determinism.
Pragmatists tend to strive for more rapid conclusions. It's called angelic non-determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_non-determinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelic_non-determinism
And over time you tend to develop a (rather accurate) intuition for who's playing which game...
My heuristic tends to go something like this: it's much easier to argue ad infinitum over meta-bullshit such as the semantics of the subjectivity/objectivity of morality than it is to disagree (in practice) with the wrongness of being murdered.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am
Better? This seems like more mindreading. I don't think objective morals are better, whatever that would even mean.
Then it shouldn't matter whether they are objective; or subjective - no? Otherwise it sure begs the question - why choose that particular qualifier; and how?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am
It seems to be you who thinks objective morals are better.
I don't think that, but I do think that you think that.
I think that the adjective which we use to characterise morality is immaterial.
Oh... you don't even know that you are doing it? So you aren't very intentional with your words...