11 ms·

The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. W

• brasky 12y ago
  You might like to read this https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/universally_preferable_behavior_a_rational_proof_of_secular_ethics.html https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/universally_pre...
• javert 12y ago
  I'm not defending the article, but you are wrong. Stealing from others is bad if it decreases your pleasure and it is good if it increases your pleasure. That is objective.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    How is that objective? Why is something bad if it decreases your pleasure?
    • javert 12y ago
      What other meaning could there possibly be for words like "bad" and "good"?
      • icebraining 12y ago
        Really? Self-sacrifice and penance are almost the basis of one the most popular moral theories in the world. Just go ask the closest Christian you might have.
        • javert 12y ago
          > Self-sacrifice and penance are almost the basis of one the most popular moral theories in the world You can't make those objective, though. That is my point. (It's not like I haven't actually heard of Christian morality before.) Ultimately, the only thing that actually matters for any living organism is pleasure. Thus, only pleasure, ultimately, can be good or bad for an organism. I mean "pleasure" in the broadest possible sense, but it's always either a physical sensation or an emotion.
          • icebraining 12y ago
            Ultimately, the only thing that actually matters for any living organism is pleasure. How so? Why can't subjective things matter to a living organism? You're jumping some logical steps there, I think.
            • javert 12y ago
              Subjective things can only truly matter if they bring pleasure or cause pain. So my point is still correct. (We need a definition of subjective, though, so this probably isn't clear.) It's true that someone could subjectively think, mistakenly, that something matters, which doesn't. So someone could be wrong about what matters. e.g. Someone could think that God's approval matters, when in reality, only pleasure and pain matter for their own sake.
              • matt_kantor 12y ago
                I think the point was that "pleasure == good" is not any more obvious/provably correct/well-defined than something like "duty == good".
  • danpat 12y ago
    Does it go from objectively bad to objectively good if you feel differently about it on different days?
    • javert 12y ago
      No.
  • yellowapple 12y ago
    That's a big "if", though. For others, stealing might increase one's pleasure. This decrease v. increase of pleasure about something is what's called an "opinion". It's not objective if it changes based on who you ask and how you observe it.
    • javert 12y ago
      > It's not objective if it changes based on who you ask and how you observe it. Sure it is. I'm not sure what you think the word "objective" should mean.
      • matt_kantor 12y ago
        Could you explain why/how pleasure is objective? It's not obvious to me what you mean.
      • dragonwriter 12y ago
        > > It's not objective if it changes based on who you ask and how you observe it. > Sure it is. No, its not. "Objective" means, exactly, that its truth is not dependent on who you ask or how you observe; "subjective" is the word that describes claims that are dependent on those things.
        • javert 12y ago
          If I get pleasure from doing X, that is an objective fact. If I value Y, that is an objective fact. Anyway, I'm not going to present a full epistemological theory of objectivity in the comments of HN. That would be futile. If you want to know about it, you can go research it. I don't mind chatting about it, I'm just pointing out that you can't expect too much from me here. Generally, the most I try to do in an online philosophical discussion is get people to think (when I disagree with them), not try to prove something. It's just not possible to prove much without, like, writing a book.
        • alexvoda 12y ago
          I think what javert meant is this: The sentence "Goodness of stealing is directly proportional with the net pleasure." (positive net pleasure = good) is objective. And the sentence "Badness of stealing is inversely proportional with the net pleasure" (negative net pleasure = bad) is equally objective. These roughly convert to: If stealing brings you pleasure it is good for you. If stealing brings you pain it is bad for you. If being stolen from brings you pleasure it is good for you. If being stolen from brings you pain it is bad for you.
• humanrebar 12y ago
  > Everything is just an opinion. Including everything you just wrote. I'm not sure why you're so down on his claims when your position is circular at best. Is everything relative so everyone has a valid opinion? Or is everything relative so that nobody has a valid opinion? Either way, why do you care?
  • lerpa 12y ago
    He cares because if he's being deceived that's well immor.. uh no, ba.., not that, eh unethi.. well... he doesn't like it because reasons.
• evincarofautumn 12y ago
  It seems that philosophers rarely make use of rigorous logic even though they stand to benefit from it immensely.
  • EarthLaunch 12y ago
    Philosophers invented rigorous logic. This one sure didn't present any, though.
  • jackson1372 12y ago
    Contemporary academic philosophy is full of rigorous logic. Either you're ignorant of what actual academic philosophers do, or you can't recognize rigorous logic when you see it.
    • evincarofautumn 12y ago
      Sure, many academic philosophers produce good work, but as many popular articles of this nature are riddled with logical holes and give a poor impression of what philosophy is.
• jackson1372 12y ago
  The point of the article is not to prove that values are objective. Rather, the point is to undermine the fact/opinion distinction. If moral sentiments were mere opinion, then there'd be no point to arguing over whether some action is right or wrong. When you tell me that you really like the taste of sushi, I don't argue with you - I just accept that that's your taste. But that we don't simply accept as 'taste' other's moral sentiments suggests that our own understanding of what is at stake is different.
  • throwawayaway 12y ago
    I do accept other's moral sentiments as taste - maybe I'm some sort of sociopath? To hell with me. I see arguing over right and wrong as the mob enforcing its rule.
    • jackson1372 12y ago
      But the point is that, as a society, we don't treat moral sentiment as taste. For instance, when someone murders another person, we don't say: "Well, that person just likes murdering people. Who are we to disagree?!" Instead, we say they did something wrong, and we punish them. If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist. And the point of the author is that, as a society, we seem to have an inconsistent position.
      • icebraining 12y ago
        If you're not prepared to give up all claims on how others should act, then you're not really a moral relativist. I disagree completely. The claim might simply be based on might. We as a society are more numerous and stronger than the occasional murderer, and therefore we'll act on our moral taste and punish him. I agree that people don't actually think like that, but that doesn't prove that moral facts exists, just that many people think they do.
        • throwawayaway 12y ago
• throwawayaway 12y ago
  Yes I am guilty of moral relativism, that I am not alone in that is interesting, so the article is one I find interesting. But it is flawed, your example is apt and that's not the only one: Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?” Him: “It’s a fact.” Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.” Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.” Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?” The blank stare on his face said it all. ... I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted. With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.
  • jgallag8 12y ago
    What does it mean for something to be 'a higher form of truth'? More valuable, according to some appropriate standard? More useful, according to some appropriate standard?
    • throwawayaway 12y ago
      I mean it's a statement with a lower "margin of error". More testable.
• dogma1138 12y ago
  So universal human rights are not objectively good? It's fairly easy to assert that some moral standards are objectively better. Take slavery for example, society a practices it while society b does not. Which society gives a better environment for the whole of its people? And the same thing can be extended to take your example, don't know why you've put in game theory into the mix, but in general people tend to live better lives where there is law and order rather than live a life under constant threat and having to be the biggest meanest SOB out there to feel safe. Not to mention that when you live in a society in which your home and self can be raped and pillaged at any moment you tend to invest quite a bit of resources in protecting your own self. While this can still be seen in society today e.g. Police forces, safes, guns etc. It's no where near the amount of resources that would be wasted if you would be living in the wild west. While it might not be politically correct to think that you live in a society which is more moral and better than others, the truth is that if you live in the west you most likely live in one. And and in fact he luxury of this life style is what allows you to live in that nice little bubble of political correctness. I personally believe that moral equivalence (or relativism) leads to moral bankruptcy, and sadly too many people have gone under. They promote the equivalence of the moral values of cultures with completely "different" moral values, values that sorry to say in many cases are objectively less "moral" than modern western values. Cultures that if the roles would've been reversed would not only let them speak but would actively silence them. And while i might agree that everything might be just an opinion as you would said, there just might be some opinions which are better than others. I would like to live in a free and open society, a society that protects it's members and grants them as many rights as possible without hurting the rights of others and without devolving into anarchy. I rather live in a society that does not practice slavery, where women are equals, and no one gives a fuck what is on your plate or who is in your bedroom. And while you might think that a society that stones women for adultery and hangs homosexuals on construction cranes at the local square is just as moral correct as the one mentioned i would disagree. And if you want to quantify that, just quantify the well being of its members, including the ones that would be stoned, hanged, or locked in prison for life for being of or attracted to the wrong sex or simply by promoting other ideas. And yes there is a good reason why I've not continued to rebuttal on that "stealing from others" example you've given, because It's too simplistic and irrelevant. A society can be morally bankrupt and still practice law and order. And I'm pretty sure that you would not want to live in a society which either allows crime to be committed without consequences nor practices cruel and unusual punishment in some eye for an eye biblical fashion. Because as much as i would think that the guy who broke into my flat and got away with my TV deserves to pay for his crime (and get some help in the process) i don't think that a boy who stole a loaf of bread from the market should get his hand chopped off because the law says so. Oh and of course this is all my opinion, but i think given the chance we know exactly in which society people would chose to live in.
• miguelrochefort 12y ago
  The author can be ignored. Now focus on my words. There is no point debating without first accepting the existence of absolute, universal and objective moral truth. You can't claim that someone "is wrong" (in the objective sense) if "being wrong" is not something that can exist. When a subjectivist "debates", it can only be motivated by selfishness - never by truth. Self-awareness is the only thing that matters. The system only exists to understand itself, as accurately as possible. That's what we also call "truth", and that's the most important thing. Really. Truth is about convergence, as there exists only one truth. When a person lies, it increases entropy (that's not good). While there exists only one truth, there can exist infinitely many lies. You can't disprove truth, but you can disprove lies, if only through contradictions. Whenever a person lies, progress (proximity to truth) slows down. That's the definition of evil. Therefore, lying is objectively/universally/absolutely a bad thing. It is not important whether a lie today could lead to a better outcome in the future. We can't accurately predict the future. We don't even know "when" the future is. It is therefore, impossible to evaluate whether something is good or not based on future events, as it can never be known. This is at this point that you must realize that what matters is not the end, but the means. The means justifies the end, not the other way around. Failing to understand that hurts the universe. Aim for efficiency. Aim for truth. You will find that these two things are just one. Only then will you be one with the universe.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    You just asserted a lot of stuff. You're not debating, merely preaching.