RE: Subjective Morality?
October 27, 2018 at 1:11 am
(This post was last modified: October 27, 2018 at 1:17 am by vulcanlogician.)
This is so frustrating!!!
The fact is, depending upon which ethical theory you presuppose, the argument could be made that humankind ought to be removed in the fashion you describe. Many hedonists (for example) think that since animals feel pain and suffering, they deserve the same moral consideration as human beings. If you were a hedonistic utilitarian (one who wants to maximize pleasure and happiness whilst minimizing pain and suffering) you could easily make the argument that human beings' presence on the planet creates more suffering than pleasure-- humans make animals suffer, and they suffer themselves, tremendously. No humans=less suffering.
A moral objectivist would have no trouble having this argument. You might be correct, after all. Though there are other solutions besides eradicating humankind. These also deserve consideration. But hey, your way works too. And it very well might be the best way to reduce suffering in the world. That's a matter to debate.
Morality is complicated. The chart I posted is pretty simple, but morality itself is way, way, way complicated.
The word "good" can be used to describe objective AND subjective phenomena. Language has got you hung up. You can say, that piece of cheesecake is "good"-- that refers to your subjective experience. You derived pleasure from it. When you say "Michael Jordan is a 'good' basketball player" you are referring to something objective. He isn't good at basketball in your opinion because there are objective criteria for measuring his goodness. These are complicated too. What about somebody who scores less points than Jordan, but gets more rebounds? Is he better? Or worse? It's complicated. But these are nonetheless objective criteria which we are using to measure basketball skill.
Here is another thing you are getting hung up on. Nobody has to agree on shit. We could ALL be wrong in our moral assertions and that wouldn't change the fact that they refer to something objective. If everyone on the planet Earth became a flat earther, that wouldn't make the earth flat. The question is what's true? not what do we agree upon?
You might want to look into hedonism or utilitarianism, Rob... if you haven't already. I think you are one... but because logic... not because opinions... and not because fictional assumptions. It's frustrating because I suspect you are an objectivist, but you find appeal in several arguments from moral skepticism. The arguments ARE rather appealing. And they might even be correct. At this point, I can't fault you for not trying. You read both of the essays I posted. Maybe you just are a moral skeptic. I give up.
I also think the is/ought problem needs its own thread. There's something there, but it's not as significant as you (and many others) take it to be.
Anyway, sorry to intrude in the thread after I said I was sidelining myself. I'll see myself out now.
Quote:PS: I’ll give an example. I think the existence of humans in general is a bad thing. That’s not a hypothetical, I actually do. So I could make an argument that wiping them out completely while leaving all other life on earth intact would be a good thing.
People are free to disagree with my evaluation of humans, but it requires the admission that morality/ethics is way more complicated to refute my argument.
The fact is, depending upon which ethical theory you presuppose, the argument could be made that humankind ought to be removed in the fashion you describe. Many hedonists (for example) think that since animals feel pain and suffering, they deserve the same moral consideration as human beings. If you were a hedonistic utilitarian (one who wants to maximize pleasure and happiness whilst minimizing pain and suffering) you could easily make the argument that human beings' presence on the planet creates more suffering than pleasure-- humans make animals suffer, and they suffer themselves, tremendously. No humans=less suffering.
A moral objectivist would have no trouble having this argument. You might be correct, after all. Though there are other solutions besides eradicating humankind. These also deserve consideration. But hey, your way works too. And it very well might be the best way to reduce suffering in the world. That's a matter to debate.
Morality is complicated. The chart I posted is pretty simple, but morality itself is way, way, way complicated.
Quote:What is "good" in general does not, historically speaking, so it relies on popular opinions at any given time.
The word "good" can be used to describe objective AND subjective phenomena. Language has got you hung up. You can say, that piece of cheesecake is "good"-- that refers to your subjective experience. You derived pleasure from it. When you say "Michael Jordan is a 'good' basketball player" you are referring to something objective. He isn't good at basketball in your opinion because there are objective criteria for measuring his goodness. These are complicated too. What about somebody who scores less points than Jordan, but gets more rebounds? Is he better? Or worse? It's complicated. But these are nonetheless objective criteria which we are using to measure basketball skill.
Quote:You can’t show things are agreed upon by assuming they are agreed upon.
Here is another thing you are getting hung up on. Nobody has to agree on shit. We could ALL be wrong in our moral assertions and that wouldn't change the fact that they refer to something objective. If everyone on the planet Earth became a flat earther, that wouldn't make the earth flat. The question is what's true? not what do we agree upon?
You might want to look into hedonism or utilitarianism, Rob... if you haven't already. I think you are one... but because logic... not because opinions... and not because fictional assumptions. It's frustrating because I suspect you are an objectivist, but you find appeal in several arguments from moral skepticism. The arguments ARE rather appealing. And they might even be correct. At this point, I can't fault you for not trying. You read both of the essays I posted. Maybe you just are a moral skeptic. I give up.
I also think the is/ought problem needs its own thread. There's something there, but it's not as significant as you (and many others) take it to be.
Anyway, sorry to intrude in the thread after I said I was sidelining myself. I'll see myself out now.
