moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:27 pm A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
A good utilitarian – such as John Stuart Mill – would opt to switch the track. For utilitarians, the good of the many comes first, and the only option here is to save as many lives as possible. When first presented with the problem, many of us would opt for the same action, whether we’ve ever heard the term ‘utilitarian’ or not.
Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is...moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers...this many dead or that many dead.
You must think "up in the clouds" means something different from everyone else. That's the least up in the clouds moral solution to a moral situation imaginable.

If you want an example of a quote that's up in the clouds, here's one:
But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:34 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:27 pm A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
A good utilitarian – such as John Stuart Mill – would opt to switch the track. For utilitarians, the good of the many comes first, and the only option here is to save as many lives as possible. When first presented with the problem, many of us would opt for the same action, whether we’ve ever heard the term ‘utilitarian’ or not.
Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is...moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers...this many dead or that many dead.
You must think "up in the clouds" means something different from everyone else. That's the least up in the clouds moral solution to a moral situation imaginable.

If you want an example of a quote that's up in the clouds, here's one:
But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein.
Note to iwannaplato and phyllo:

Nature now compels you to concur please.
Or, sure, of your own volition [perhaps] please confirm it.

8)



Oh, and just for the record: https://observer.com/2000/02/its-tom-wo ... e-stooges/

:wink:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

What you said there must come down to dasein
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein
Just out of curiosity, FJ, you're not felixdakat, are you?

Over at ILP, my own "three stooges" were phyllo, karpel tunnel [iwannaplato I believe] and felix.

Just for the record. :wink:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:15 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein
Just out of curiosity, FJ, you're not felixdakat, are you?

Over at ILP, my own "three stooges" were phyllo, karpel tunnel [iwannaplato I believe] and felix.

Just for the record. :wink:
You only think that because of dasein.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:19 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:15 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein
Just out of curiosity, FJ, you're not felixdakat, are you?

Over at ILP, my own "three stooges" were phyllo, karpel tunnel [iwannaplato I believe] and felix.

Just for the record. :wink:
You only think that because of dasein.
Okay, then, a "condition" it is.



Note to Ichthus77:

Thanks for the tip. And praise the Lord.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12370
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow.
Yeah, it is common sense moral disagreement denote moral relativism, i.e. not objective, but on more serious consideration, moral disagreements actually support moral realism, i.e. moral Objectivity.

Analogy, different people may disagree on how to avoid diabetes, on what food to avoid and to eat, but the underlying fact that intake of excessive glucose through various sources is a metabolic problem to health is inherent to all humans, i.e. objective.

Recently there had been a lot of argument that Moral Disagreements do support moral realism. Example,
Since intractable disagreement among wise, informed and rational people about philosophical matters does not license a verdict of philosophical antirealism, it should not do so when the subject is ethics proper.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32534/cha ... m=fulltext
There are also arguments that Moral Disagreements has no weight against Moral Realism - thus Moral Objectivity.
Moral disagreement is widely held to pose a threat for metaethical realism and objectivity. In this paper I attempt to understand how it is that moral disagreement is supposed to present a problem for metaethical realism. I do this by going through several distinct (though often related) arguments from disagreement, carefully distinguishing between them, and critically evaluating their merits. My conclusions are rather skeptical: Some of the arguments I discuss fail rather clearly. Others supply with a challenge to realism, but not one we have any reason to believe realism cannot address successfully. Others beg the question against the moral realist, and yet others raise serious objections to realism, but ones that — when carefully stated — can be seen not to be essentially related to moral disagreement.
Arguments based on moral disagreement itself have almost no weight, I conclude, against moral realism.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2607198
Note this thread;
Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39771
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....
Good start..
FUCK OFF.



I've spend yeasr in the study of anthropology, history, and archaeology. So run along.
Last edited by Sculptor on Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....
Good start..
FUCK OFF.



I've spend year in the study of anthropology, history, and archaeology. So run along.
So did they teach you any statistics and data science in that year?

Because it seems to me the world's getting better in almost every imaginable way. How's that possible in you world view?

https://ourworldindata.org/
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Peter Holmes »

Premise: The world's getting better in almost every imaginable way.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

(Face palm.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:00 am Premise: The world's getting better in almost every imaginable way.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

(Face palm.)
Frames everything in terms of "premises" and "conclusions".
Misunderstands what's being described.
Facepalms himself because of his own misunderstanding.

Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....
Good start..
FUCK OFF.



I've spend years in the study of anthropology, history, and archaeology. So run along.
So did they teach you any statistics and data science in that year?

Because it seems to me the world's getting better in almost every imaginable way. How's that possible in you world view?

https://ourworldindata.org/
It was seven years of higher education all told.
I learned statistics yes.
Can you please give it your best shot to show how you think the subject of statistics relates to the question of moral objectivism.
I need a good laugh this afternoon.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:00 am Premise: The world's getting better in almost every imaginable way.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

(Face palm.)
Frames everything in terms of "premises" and "conclusions".
Misunderstands what's being described.
Facepalms himself because of his own misunderstanding.

Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes
You are just making a fool of yourself.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:30 pm It was seven years of higher education all told.
I learned statistics yes.
Can you please give it your best shot to show how you think the subject of statistics relates to the question of moral objectivism.
I need a good laugh this afternoon.
So you spend 7 years studying and then... nothing?

Moral progress is measurable. And therefore it's objective to any scientist.

You can tell which way on the graph is the "right" way.
You can tell which way on graph is the "wrong" way.

That's a measurable difference. And therefore it's objective to any scientist.

The end.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply