RE: Subjective Morality?
October 31, 2018 at 7:33 am
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2018 at 8:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
We do shift work round hur....when ones going down anothers coming up. 
I'll add, to the above, that refusing to accept some basic premise of inquiry will not render moral facts non-existent. Whatever premise one does (or doesn't) accept simply constrains what those facts could be, which facts a person is referring to when they use the term. Beyond noncognitivism and hard nihilism, all positions on the moral spectrum refer to facts. All of them. Every single one. Their disagreements about which facts are the relevant facts define their positions in relation to each other - but there's no necessity that an acceptance of one leads to a rejection of any fact that those others refer to.
The subjectivists contention that moral facts concern internal states of mind dependent judgement -is- a subjectivist moral fact - even though they reject the realists basic premise that these facts refer to mind independent variables. The only statements that a subjectivist will accept -as- morally factual are those which conform to this working definition..because that's what they're talking about..that's what they think morality -is-. They don't even have to reject that "skullfucking causes harm" is a fact, they're simply contending that this fact is not what moral facts aim at. That's not -why- it's wrong, even if that is true. A realist, otoh, rejects the basic subjectivist premise that morality is about mind dependent judgement, but doesn't need to reject the notion that mind dependent judgement is occurring, that the act of our judgement is factually mind dependent. They simply contend that our judgements can be driven by reference to externalities.
What I would love, and I'm basically just aping vulcan at this point from another thread - is to help people to get to the point where they are at least disagreeing on points of fact, not disagreeing on the existence of facts...because it's pretty absurd to have this sort of discussion in the presence of that particular assertion. If there are no moral facts - then errybody is wrong for the same reason. A subjectivist, for example, can disagree on point of moral fact, but cannot maintain that there are no moral facts...because they're proposing moral facts themselves.
Insomuch as their facts do not match a realists facts, they think the other guy has it wrong, but not necessarily because what the other guy is saying isn't objectively true - more because he's looking at the wrong facts. Morality, they contend, aims at some other truth.
I'll add, to the above, that refusing to accept some basic premise of inquiry will not render moral facts non-existent. Whatever premise one does (or doesn't) accept simply constrains what those facts could be, which facts a person is referring to when they use the term. Beyond noncognitivism and hard nihilism, all positions on the moral spectrum refer to facts. All of them. Every single one. Their disagreements about which facts are the relevant facts define their positions in relation to each other - but there's no necessity that an acceptance of one leads to a rejection of any fact that those others refer to.
The subjectivists contention that moral facts concern internal states of mind dependent judgement -is- a subjectivist moral fact - even though they reject the realists basic premise that these facts refer to mind independent variables. The only statements that a subjectivist will accept -as- morally factual are those which conform to this working definition..because that's what they're talking about..that's what they think morality -is-. They don't even have to reject that "skullfucking causes harm" is a fact, they're simply contending that this fact is not what moral facts aim at. That's not -why- it's wrong, even if that is true. A realist, otoh, rejects the basic subjectivist premise that morality is about mind dependent judgement, but doesn't need to reject the notion that mind dependent judgement is occurring, that the act of our judgement is factually mind dependent. They simply contend that our judgements can be driven by reference to externalities.
What I would love, and I'm basically just aping vulcan at this point from another thread - is to help people to get to the point where they are at least disagreeing on points of fact, not disagreeing on the existence of facts...because it's pretty absurd to have this sort of discussion in the presence of that particular assertion. If there are no moral facts - then errybody is wrong for the same reason. A subjectivist, for example, can disagree on point of moral fact, but cannot maintain that there are no moral facts...because they're proposing moral facts themselves.
Insomuch as their facts do not match a realists facts, they think the other guy has it wrong, but not necessarily because what the other guy is saying isn't objectively true - more because he's looking at the wrong facts. Morality, they contend, aims at some other truth.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
