Animal Description

[nebula]

Siding with the Christians Neb? Welcome aboard!

Hey - if I can needle Pam, I can needle SA.

Careful what you say, mscoville, you could be next!

:tongue:

[Bread_of_Life]

nebula

You do realize that this is a statement of opinion, don't you? I mean, do you have any evidence to support the statement that there are no absolutes?

Firstly, every single statement is a statement of opinion, no matter what the evidential basis of this statement is. I can say "the sky is blue", and despite the fact that I have evidence to back the statement up, it is still by definition a statement of my opinion. Therefore, there is no necessary connexion between a statement being baseless, and a statement being opinion.

Secondly, I did not claim that there was no absolute truth (or as you put it, "no absolutes." What I actually claimed is that there was no moral or aesthetic truth. It's almost certain that you agree that there is no aesthetic truth - that aesthetics is based on subjective preferences - yet even though you accept the fact that there is no aesthetic truth doesn't mean you reject truth as a concept. The fact that I believe that there's no moral truth doesn't necessitate my rejection of physical, metaphysical or epistemological truth.

Lastly, you are assuming that I havn't any evidence or deductive argument to prove my assertion that morals are subjective. In fact, I do have just such an argument, you simply havn't heard it yet, because it hasn't been asked of me, and I have no volunteered it. If you want to start another thread on moral subjectivism, I'd be only too happy to contribute just such an argument, and I think you'll find it is watertight.

mscoville

Where do those come from?

My preferences most likely come from a mixture of my upbringing, society, and my internal nature (my brain structure as mediated through my genes and embryology). But then, who cares where they came from - I have already admitted that, like every other preference and value, they are subjective - therefore there is no need to dig deeper into their origin to confirm this fact.

I think you're arguing in a circle.

Then show me the evidence that I am, rather than just saying it!

So your answer is because?

Why do I choose to eat white bread instead of brown? The answer is, I prefer white bread. Why would I choose a ten pound note over ten rocks - the answer is, because I prefer currency to basalt. Why would I choose to care for my children rather than kill them - because I prefer to care for them, and value human life.

There is no deeper answer to this question. The reason I have one moral code and not any other is because I have one set of preferences and values and not any other. The reason I choose white bread over brown is because I have white bread preference and not brown bread. There's no deeper meaning, no greater truth - no truth at all in these cases. Just subjective preference, with a bit of empirical evidence, and some logic to formulate the syllogism.

They have meaning to you. But are Ultimately meaningless. Sound better?

No, it does not. They are not meaningless to anyone. There is a fairly strict criteria for something to be meaningless - and this doesn't fit that criteria. My moral statements have meaning, and they do convey information - they just don't have a truth value.

Based on a moral law of some sort (your own creation?) Based on your "values" which are based on.......

I don't think you understand what meta-ethics is, as opposed to ethics. I have made no ethical argument here. I havn't claimed that murder is wrong and tried to argue so - I havn't claimed that homosexuality is right and tried to argue so. These would be ethical arguments, and these would require some sort of ethical law or value judgement to be made.

I am making a meta-ethical argument. Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to make ethical judgements, or whether it is possible to at all. "Is murder wrong" is an ethical question - but before we answer it, we'll have to answer some meta-ethical questions, like "Is there moral truth", "How do we judge what is wrong and what is right?", "How should we construct a moral law?".

Therefore, the claim that morals are neither true or false, that morals are subjective and not objective, is not an ethical statement (like "murder is wrong), it is a metaethical statement. Claiming that there is no ethical truth is not contradictory, because "there is no ethical truth" is not in of itself an ethical statement, but rather a metaethical statement, and I have no reason to think that there is no metaethical truth. Do you understand the distinction?

[Guest mscoville]

QUOTE 

Where do those come from?

My preferences most likely come from a mixture of my upbringing, society, and my internal nature (my brain structure as mediated through my genes and embryology). But then, who cares where they came from - I have already admitted that, like every other preference and value, they are subjective - therefore there is no need to dig deeper into their origin to confirm this fact.

This is where you differ from God. Your views are subject (subjective) to change and are a product of your environment, and your created brain structure. But God is not subject to any others opinions or his "surroundings" or society. He exists before and outside of those type of pressures. His being produces morality because that is his uncaused nature. He is moral by his nature, that is where we get our morals. I think you should dig deeper anyway.

they just don't have a truth value.

Without a "truth value" it sounds meaningless to me, and I think you'll find to most everyone you talk to who hears they have no "truth value". Brother you definitely have you terminology down. stumble stumble.......

I am making a meta-ethical argument. Meta-ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to make ethical judgements, or whether it is possible to at all. "Is murder wrong" is an ethical question - but before we answer it, we'll have to answer some meta-ethical questions, like "Is there moral truth", "How do we judge what is wrong and what is right?", "How should we construct a moral law?".

Ok I'm with you, so how do you make those judgements about "meta-ethics"? I definitely was confused. Hume said something similar didn't he? He said that we had to arrive at answers only through mathematics, deductive reasoning etc.. Don't know much about the philosophersm, sorry, I was a painting major, ha so you'll have to educate me as we go.

~ Martin

[nebula]

If you want to start another thread on moral subjectivism, I'd be only too happy to contribute just such an argument, and I think you'll find it is watertight.

That's OK - for some reason my feeling frustrated has turned into a desire to become ornery. Unfortunately, I don't have my brother's gift for orneriness and so cannot carry it very far - otherwise I might keep needling you just for the fun of it. :oww:

(I'm still waiting for mscoville to say someting I can needle him with now. . . . )

[artsylady]

Well, I think it's bad and wrong, and anyone rational who shares my values will think it's bad and wrong. However, the statement:

"It is bad and wrong to have sexual relations with a child"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact, but rather one of subjective value. It cannot be objectively correct or incorrect. Similarly, the statement:

So, while YOU think this is wrong, certainly you think it can also, to others, be perfectly okay?

"You are beautful"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact.

That's just an opinion, not a question of morality.

QUOTE

[Guest LCPGUY]

Claiming that there is no ethical truth is not contradictory, because "there is no ethical truth" is not in of itself an ethical statement, but rather a metaethical statement, and I have no reason to think that there is no metaethical truth. Do you understand the distinction?

Ethics? I said ETHICS!

Ethics are defined by man and vary from local to local and from time to time.

Give me morals, got it??? MORALS!!! They are defined by God Almighty and never change.

John

[Bread_of_Life]

mscoville

Your views are subject (subjective) to change

I would advise you to look up the word "subjective" in the dictionary. It does not mean "subject to change".

Subjective is the opposite of objective. Objective means:

- of or relating to actual facts as opposed to thoughts or feelings

- existing independently of the mind; real

Since God's morality does not exist independently of God's mind, and does not relate to actual objective facts but rather God's own feelings, then they are subjective, not objective. That does not mean they are subject to change - God's mind could well be made up on the matter.

He is moral by his nature, that is where we get our morals.

Does God define good, or does Good define God. In this sentence you imply both, which is of course impossible, because such an argument would be circular.

If good defines God, then what is this objective good that sits above God defining him? If God defines good, then his definition is necessarily subjective, since it relies on his own mind, and personal thoughts and feelings on matters of morality.

Without a "truth value" it sounds meaningless to me,

The statement:

"This soup tastes nice" has no truth value.

Nor does the statement:

"You are pretty" have a truth value.

Are these sentences formally meaningless? No. They have a meaning alright, a meaning that both you and I understand.

Ok I'm with you, so how do you make those judgements about "meta-ethics"?

Well, the meta-ethical judgement that all ethics are subjective was made through deductive reasoning. Most of the field of meta-ethics is made up of abstract reasoning.

artsylady

So, while YOU think this is wrong, certainly you think it can also, to others, be perfectly okay?

Lets get this straight. I think you killing a child is wrong, just as much as I think me killing a child is wrong.

However, I do understand that you might not think that killing a child is wrong. Therefore, I might think killing a child is wrong, and you might not, and neither of us will be objectively right. Neither of us will be correct in our moral assessment, because there is no "correct" in terms of moral assessments, there is no truth value to the sentence "killing a child is wrong".

That's just an opinion, not a question of morality.

Actually, it's very similar to a moral opinion. If I say "artsylady, you are beautiful", I have made a statement of preference for how you look. If I say "killing children is wrong" I have made a statement of preference against harming children. Both are based fundamentally on preference.

Aren't you glad you live in a country that holds firm to Judeo Christian values?

I don't. Certainly some of the values of this country match up with Judeo Christian values; but then, some of the values of this country match up with Islamic values, some match up with Hindu values, some with Sikh values, some with Buddhist values.

Indeed, most of the major religions have similar core values, and most countries do too. However, I would not go as far as to say that I live in a country with Judeo-Christian values - indeed, in many ways, it's opposite.

Otherwise, we might all be surrounded with people who kill and eat each other, people who openly have sex with children, people who castrate females legally or have sex with animals?

Actually, during Christian rule in Britain, people married as young as nine. Indeed, they called these times "the dark ages" - that was for a reason.

I do not thank Christianity for civilisation in this country - I thank the pagan Romans, and then the writers and thinkers of the secular enlightenment.

Would this not bother you at all? Would you try to get these laws changed?

yes, I would try to get these laws changed, clearly, since they would be against my values.

I know you say you value human life and animal life and I'm wondering, would you give 20 dollars to stop the slaughter of little girls in India? Would you give 20 dollars to stop lions from killing gazelles? Why or why not?

I would give 20 dollars to stop the slaughter of girls in India before giving 20 dollars to stop the slaughter of Gazelles. This is for 3 reasons. Firstly, I have more reason for thinking girls in India fully conscious and self-aware than Gazelles, and I value conscious life.

Secondly, if I stop the slaughter of Gazelles, then lions will suffer. If we interfere with nature, it often goes even more wrong than if we hadn't.

Thirdly, I value the lives of human beings more than I value the lives of animals, that's why I'm not a vegetarian.

So, if they decided to start letting baby girls die here in North America, started legally allowing child -adult sexual relations or started letting humans kill and consume other humans, would you have any problems with this?

I've already said yes to these questions, and given my reasons. Why ask them again?

If so, who are YOU to do so. Just because YOU value human lives and children's well-being, who are YOU to try to stop people from doing what they think is perfectly okay?

I am someone who does value human life, and is therefore motivated by those values to attempt to stop people harming others. I don't do it because I think my morality is special, or more truthful or objectively right than any other - just because it is my morality, and my conscience will not allow me to idly stand by.

Fortunately, many people share my values, and are willing to help me stop such cruelty. Arn't I lucky?

Does that answer the above? You would do nothing, but lock your doors?

No, and if you'd been reading my last reply to you, you would have seen that I did answer this question. It is answered above once again, hopefully you'll have cottoned on to the reply this time.

If you grew up in a cannibalistic tribe, you would grow up thinking it was okay to kill another human and gain strength from eating their flesh. Aren't you glad you didn't grow up there?

Of course I'm glad - but the only reason I am glad is because I do not have that set of values. I value human life, and therefore I do not think cannabilism is okay. Presumably if I didn't value human life, then I would think it was okay, and I wouldn't see what all the fuss was about.

It's like asking a person who grew up in a home where they were taught from day 1 that eating meat was disgusting and wrong whether they are glad they didn't grow up in a meat eating home. Sure they are, because now they think that eating meat is disgusting and wrong. That doesn't mean that eating meat actually *is* *objectively* disgusting and wrong.

IcpGuy

Ethics are defined by man and vary from local to local and from time to time.

Give me morals, got it??? MORALS!!! They are defined by God Almighty and never change.

Again, I would urge you to look the two words up.

Morals relate to what is right and wrong. Ethics are the practical application of morals - they turn the abstract of what is right and wrong into a code of practice - a code of how one ought to act in order to be moral.

Therefore, ethics are necessarily connected to morality - they are not seperate concepts that can be defined seperately.

[Guest mscoville]

I got this thought this weekend and I wondered what you'd say about this. Doesn't it seem like a world without morals, sorry, where moral judgements are neither right or wrong seem to promote what you and I would call immoral actions, (ie Hitler, Stalin etc.. other nice guys who believed that morals didn't have a truth value.. ) which goes against your own values and morals, doesn't that stink?

Hitler said "I want to create a generation devoid of a conscience, imperious relentless and cruel" oops he said cruel, that has no truth value, I wonder what he meant?

It seems like your own philosophy creates activity that goes against your morals. Do you think that is accurate?

[Bread_of_Life]

Doesn't it seem like a world without morals, sorry, where moral judgements are neither right or wrong seem to promote what you and I would call immoral actions, (ie Hitler, Stalin etc.. other nice guys who believed that morals didn't have a truth value.. ) which goes against your own values and morals, doesn't that stink?

Firstly, what promotes actions that are against my values is people having different values, not the fact that there is no moral truth.

However, I do see your point. If noone is objectively wrong about their morality, it is harder to change their minds about morality to bring them into line with what I think it right. On the other hand, there clearly are ways of convincing people to behave in a way that I find morally acceptable - because there are so many people around who share my values (which is fortunate).

By the way, you are right about it sucking. It does suck that morals arn't objective - that there is no moral truth. It sucks real hard. But then, that's the way things are, just gonna have to deal with it.

Hitler said "I want to create a generation devoid of a conscience, imperious relentless and cruel" oops he said cruel, that has no truth value, I wonder what he meant?

Cruel has a meaning, we both know the meaning of the word cruel. However, the statement "being cruel to others is wrong" is neither true or false. It has a meaning, but it is neither true or false.

It seems like your own philosophy creates activity that goes against your morals.

No, I don't think it creates such activity or encourages it - but it certainly doesn't actively go against such activity, which is a shame. But I'm afraid I can't bend the truth because I want it to be false - so I'm gonna have to stick to my guns - whether I like it or not, there is no moral truth.

[Guest mscoville]

That's OK - for some reason my feeling frustrated has turned into a desire to become ornery. Unfortunately, I don't have my brother's gift for orneriness and so cannot carry it very far - otherwise I might keep needling you just for the fun of it. 

(I'm still waiting for mscoville to say someting I can needle him with now. . . .  )

Despite what you think my sister, I have yet to be ornery, if you read anger in my posts, again I'm sorry. Please forgive me.

~ Martin