4 ms·

Sure, but if someone doesn't grant that they want to reduce suffering for others, you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should. You get to pick

Sure, but if someone doesn't grant that they want to reduce suffering for others, you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should. You get to pick your meaning and they get to pick theirs. It's "do what you want", at the end of the day.

NoGravitas 5y ago
That's what it's always been. Even if there were a moral framework that's provably true, people could still choose to act against it (assuming some kind of free will, even if it's compatibilist). What do you do when someone hears all your arguments and says "so what"? The same thing you have to do in a universe where meaning/morality is not intrinsic: convince those you can, and force those you can't, if it's important to you.
rovolo 5y ago
In each of your responses, you're saying there needs to be a shared base of ethics. > you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should > There's no shared basis I can legitimately use to argue with them > you could not legitimately argue to them that their choices are wrong, philosophically speaking But you're not answering these questions: Which values are included in that shared basis? Where do those values come from? How do we know that those values are correct? The idea that values are arbitrary isn't saying you can't criticize other people's values. It's acknowledging that you don't have some authoritative source of ethics. How do you try to convince people that something is worthwhile or wrong? Do you appeal to this authority of ethics, or are you making some other argument?
- NateEag 5y ago
  Sure, you can criticize other people's values. They don't have to listen, though. Maybe their values even dictate that they shouldn't. You're right that I'm not answering a lot of questions about my own perspective. I wasn't trying to explain my views. I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system. In my case, it produces nihilistic horror, and this is one of the reasons. I'm not saying a shared basis for ethics must exist. I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong. All you can legitimately say is "I don't like that." It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    Thanks for replying even after a few days. It took me some time to think through your responses as well, so I hope you forgive my own delay. > I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system. > there's nothing to be said beyond "I hate that," as far as I can see. > I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong. This makes sense. You aren't saying that people won't condemn Stalin's and Kim's action. You're not saying that you or others couldn't be wrong about condemning those two. You're saying: how can anyone judge anyone else if there isn't some objective source of morality? I dunno though, this seems very juvenile. Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong? I'd rather acknowledge that I can change my morals based on good arguments and reasoning. Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are. We should always consider whether our ethical guidelines are actually good or if they're doing harm. > It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy You don't have to agree with the majority with your own ethical beliefs. Sometimes being in the minority is a signal that your own reasoning is faulty and you should listen to others, and sometimes it's because other people aren't thinking ethically.
    - NateEag 5y ago
      No worries about slow replies. Obviously I'm not greased lightning myself. I appreciate your civil, thoughtful responses. > Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong? People can absolutely condemn killing for any reason they like. When I'm reasoning from the framework of materialist humanism, I don't see any reason killing is objectively wrong. I see no basis for any objective moral statements at all from this perspective. If there is no transcendence, nothing outside of our heads that actually defines what good is, then I see no basis for saying anything is "right" or "wrong". Put another way, "right" and "wrong" become synonyms for "liked" and "disliked". > Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are. I think I disagree. Certainty is something it's very hard for a human mind to have legitimately. You can still sometimes piece things together enough to have confidence, though. If we agree that there is such a thing as objectively right and wrong behavior, we can engage in discussion, research, thinking, and debate which may bring us closer to a shared understanding of what that good might be. If morals are subjective, then you can still have that debate, but there's no basis for it nor a real reason to have it. It boils down to arguing about what the people involved like, as far as I can see, which doesn't really make sense to me. This could just be my perspective preventing me from understanding what you're getting at.

NoGravitas 5y ago

That's what it's always been. Even if there were a moral framework that's provably true, people could still choose to act against it (assuming some kind of free will, even if it's compatibilist). What do you do when someone hears all your arguments and says "so what"? The same thing you have to do in a universe where meaning/morality is not intrinsic: convince those you can, and force those you can't, if it's important to you.

rovolo 5y ago

In each of your responses, you're saying there needs to be a shared base of ethics. > you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should > There's no shared basis I can legitimately use to argue with them > you could not legitimately argue to them that their choices are wrong, philosophically speaking But you're not answering these questions: Which values are included in that shared basis? Where do those values come from? How do we know that those values are correct? The idea that values are arbitrary isn't saying you can't criticize other people's values. It's acknowledging that you don't have some authoritative source of ethics. How do you try to convince people that something is worthwhile or wrong? Do you appeal to this authority of ethics, or are you making some other argument?

NateEag 5y ago
Sure, you can criticize other people's values. They don't have to listen, though. Maybe their values even dictate that they shouldn't. You're right that I'm not answering a lot of questions about my own perspective. I wasn't trying to explain my views. I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system. In my case, it produces nihilistic horror, and this is one of the reasons. I'm not saying a shared basis for ethics must exist. I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong. All you can legitimately say is "I don't like that." It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy.
- rovolo 5y ago
  Thanks for replying even after a few days. It took me some time to think through your responses as well, so I hope you forgive my own delay. > I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system. > there's nothing to be said beyond "I hate that," as far as I can see. > I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong. This makes sense. You aren't saying that people won't condemn Stalin's and Kim's action. You're not saying that you or others couldn't be wrong about condemning those two. You're saying: how can anyone judge anyone else if there isn't some objective source of morality? I dunno though, this seems very juvenile. Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong? I'd rather acknowledge that I can change my morals based on good arguments and reasoning. Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are. We should always consider whether our ethical guidelines are actually good or if they're doing harm. > It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy You don't have to agree with the majority with your own ethical beliefs. Sometimes being in the minority is a signal that your own reasoning is faulty and you should listen to others, and sometimes it's because other people aren't thinking ethically.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    No worries about slow replies. Obviously I'm not greased lightning myself. I appreciate your civil, thoughtful responses. > Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong? People can absolutely condemn killing for any reason they like. When I'm reasoning from the framework of materialist humanism, I don't see any reason killing is objectively wrong. I see no basis for any objective moral statements at all from this perspective. If there is no transcendence, nothing outside of our heads that actually defines what good is, then I see no basis for saying anything is "right" or "wrong". Put another way, "right" and "wrong" become synonyms for "liked" and "disliked". > Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are. I think I disagree. Certainty is something it's very hard for a human mind to have legitimately. You can still sometimes piece things together enough to have confidence, though. If we agree that there is such a thing as objectively right and wrong behavior, we can engage in discussion, research, thinking, and debate which may bring us closer to a shared understanding of what that good might be. If morals are subjective, then you can still have that debate, but there's no basis for it nor a real reason to have it. It boils down to arguing about what the people involved like, as far as I can see, which doesn't really make sense to me. This could just be my perspective preventing me from understanding what you're getting at.