(October 5, 2018 at 1:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 5, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: No, that's just something that many christians believe, lol.
Similarly, when they remark on the subjectivity of moral propositions they're not contending that their every moral position is, just...like..an opinion, man.
I've asked a number of times of moral subjectivist, what in the subject is the basis of morality. They normally dodge and change the subject (I don't believe that I have yet had anyone answer). Often when talking about something that is subjective, it is just a matter of preference or feelings. And I agree, that we have different opinions on what is moral, the same as their may be different opinions on some matters of science. That doesn't make either subjective though. And we do have rules that are not moral, but a matter of social convention. It doesn't make morals subjective. It seems that people want to go into moral grey areas in these discussions, rather than focusing on what is obviously immoral. Our knowledge or understanding of something doesn't make it subjective and this is just a red herring. If something is subjective, then I don't think that it is a moral truth, but rather something else.
The question 'what in the subject is the basis of morality' just seems like a poorly constructed question with no real meaning to it.
What 'subject' do you mean? The subject of morality? The person doing the moral reasoning?
Why would you think there is something 'in' the subject that is the 'basis' of morality? What could that even mean?
For me, the question of subjectivity is whether there is something in the nature of the universe that determines morality independent of people. So, the sun is something that exists whether or not there is anyone looking at it. But morality is something that only exists because there are humans. That is what makes it subjective as opposed to objective.
When you say that something is 'obviously immoral', that is a matter of your training and education and partly determined by the society you grew up in, not to mention the fact that you are human and not, say, bonobo. If you go back 2000 years, *every* society had slavery and thought it was perfectly natural and moral. That alone shows that it isn't 'obviously immoral'. In almost every society is was OK for an elite to kill an underling if they were insulted. That shows that such killing isn't 'obviously immoral'.
The point is that what you and I consider to be 'obviously immoral' is a matter of the society that educated us. It is very far from being 'obviously immoral' for all societies and for all people throughout time.
That said, I do think we are advancing morally: we are learning how to generalize from tribal notions to humanity in general, we are learning that compassion extends not just to our families and friends but to people in general. This is, in my mind, an advancement. And I think our societies will be better and more able to provide for human well being because of these changes. Our values have changed over the past 2000 years and I think they have changed in a good direction.
But then, I would.
