3 ms·

When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first principles. Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already h

When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first principles. Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already have in your head, hold them as the truth, and wantonly criticize anyone or any system that slights those beliefs. Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s Turns out that living in a pluralistic, modern society makes it really hard to reason about moral truths when claimed moral facts are so tightly coupled to cultural baggage. I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.

humanrebar 12y ago
> I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus. I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus. That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color or sports team.
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  My takeaway was that OP genuinely believes there are moral absolutes that are not the subject of consensus, they just are. Consensus attempts to build something stable from a variety of (hopefully) evidenced opinions, but it's not necessarily linked to some objective, absolute reality. He's not criticizing a lack of moral consensus, he's saying that relying on consensus as opposed to absolutes encourages amoral behavior. I would agree with the author that children shouldn't be only taught relativism, but I hope we can forgive a lack of nuance in 2nd-grade curricula. Having wiggle room and nuance in these conversations is part of how civilization has progressed, and that's stifled by the idea that all morality is derived from some semi-knowable perfect absolute reality.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  FTA: > Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. and then a link to this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-moral-relativism-and-the-crisis-of-contemporary-education http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-mor... I generally don't go for guilt by association, but can't believe he linked to this nonsense as some sort of support for his position. "All men are created equal" is a moral consensus or opinion to me. Some are definitely more equal than others.
- jarin 12y ago
  I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth, which is what I am sure you meant (unalienable means unable to be taken away). It's something I feel very strongly to be true, but it's something we have collectively agreed upon as a society. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    > unalienable means unable to be taken away Unalienable rights can be abused, but not taken away. If someone is murdered by a dictator for his opinions, that is wrong regardless of the legality of the action, the power imbalance in play, or the "personal morality" of the dictator. That is, the human right to life was violated. > I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth... There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way. The 'absolute' isn't about unanimity. It's about truth regardless of disagreement. That's the way truth works. Some people think humans never visited the Moon. And they're wrong. As were the Boston bombers, as was Ariel Castro, as was Bernie Madoff.

humanrebar 12y ago

> I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus. I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus. That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color or sports team.

dikaiosune 12y ago
My takeaway was that OP genuinely believes there are moral absolutes that are not the subject of consensus, they just are. Consensus attempts to build something stable from a variety of (hopefully) evidenced opinions, but it's not necessarily linked to some objective, absolute reality. He's not criticizing a lack of moral consensus, he's saying that relying on consensus as opposed to absolutes encourages amoral behavior. I would agree with the author that children shouldn't be only taught relativism, but I hope we can forgive a lack of nuance in 2nd-grade curricula. Having wiggle room and nuance in these conversations is part of how civilization has progressed, and that's stifled by the idea that all morality is derived from some semi-knowable perfect absolute reality.
throwawayaway 12y ago
FTA: > Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. and then a link to this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-moral-relativism-and-the-crisis-of-contemporary-education http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-mor... I generally don't go for guilt by association, but can't believe he linked to this nonsense as some sort of support for his position. "All men are created equal" is a moral consensus or opinion to me. Some are definitely more equal than others.
jarin 12y ago
I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth, which is what I am sure you meant (unalienable means unable to be taken away). It's something I feel very strongly to be true, but it's something we have collectively agreed upon as a society. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > unalienable means unable to be taken away Unalienable rights can be abused, but not taken away. If someone is murdered by a dictator for his opinions, that is wrong regardless of the legality of the action, the power imbalance in play, or the "personal morality" of the dictator. That is, the human right to life was violated. > I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth... There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way. The 'absolute' isn't about unanimity. It's about truth regardless of disagreement. That's the way truth works. Some people think humans never visited the Moon. And they're wrong. As were the Boston bombers, as was Ariel Castro, as was Bernie Madoff.