Just a thought: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Just a thought » Just a thought

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Just a thought

thefranzkafkafront
Has 'some' answers.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: Edinburgh

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/21/09 - 09:29 AM:	#51
The Nihilist Life wrote: I personally deny all moralistic standards and ethical values because they are based solely on personal perception and opinions derived from those perceptions. In return making morals and values nothing more than a set of opinions a certain group of people can agree upon and through my eyes opinions are not facts. I guess I could just be in denial, what do you think? Well the problem with that stance is it promts two 'why' questions you have to answer in order to be coherent. Firstly why does discorse of moral matters appear possible at all. If morality and all its value judgements are nothing more than a product of fallible sensation that would render them completely subjective. Quite simply it would make moral language a private language. Which would render communication inpossible. However on the other hand we have a long history of mostly confused and nuanced moral discourse, but still discorse. Making moral values at least inter-subjective. Secondly. If morals are based upon perceptions from the external world. What renders them invalid whilst at the same time perserving other epistemic activities that are based on perceptions of the external world, the natural sciences for example.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/21/09 - 12:40 PM:	#52
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Firstly why does discorse of moral matters appear possible at all. For the same reason that discourse about unicorns, love, perfection and infinity are possible. While the concepts may be less than concrete the words and phrases and definitions are all there and are mutually understood. Discourse includes disagreement and where morality is concerned there is plenty of that...because morals are subjective perceptions. If morality and all its value judgements are nothing more than a product of fallible sensation that would render them completely subjective. Quite simply it would make moral language a private language. Which would render communication inpossible. What in the hell is a private language? Nobody invents new words to talk about their subjective moral perceptions. We all do so using familiar terminology that gets across what we think and feel. That it is a unique, individual perception is just a fact of life. Just because no two people will ever have identical morals does not in any way make communication about them impossible. However on the other hand we have a long history of mostly confused and nuanced moral discourse, but still discorse. Making moral values at least inter-subjective. Of course there is going to be some common ground. The only time that might not happen is between a hard-core Bible thumper and someone completely amoral. That would be a rare pairing. Most people can find some moral common ground. Secondly. If morals are based upon perceptions from the external world. What renders them invalid whilst at the same time perserving other epistemic activities that are based on perceptions of the external world, the natural sciences for example. Valid or invalid are not considerations when it comes to morals. One has the morality that one has and that is it. How and why someone has come by theirs is a complex process. The only yardstick with which to measure another person's morality is your own, or a generalized perception of the morality of a particular social group (within which individual morals will still differ).

thefranzkafkafront
Has 'some' answers.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: Edinburgh

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/21/09 - 02:06 PM:	#53
oag wrote: For the same reason that discourse about unicorns, love, perfection and infinity are possible. While the concepts may be less than concrete the words and phrases and definitions are all there and are mutually understood. Uh if theres workable defintions and mutual understanding in discorse that's what I'm talking about. The 'exterme subjectivists' have to account for this phenomenon that's my point. If every moral judgement is nothing more than subjective perception, quale like in its character. Then why is the world the way it is? Why is discourse popular and common? If your anaylsis is to be comprehensive you can't ignore the phenomena that work against your hypothesis as simply foolishness. Discourse includes disagreement and where morality is concerned there is plenty of that...because morals are subjective perceptions. There's also a lot of agreement, that's my point. You can focus on the disagreement to prove your 'subjective perceptions' argument, but how then do you explain the numerous cases of agreement. You can't just ignore it. What in the hell is a private language? Nobody invents new words to talk about their subjective moral perceptions. We all do so using familiar terminology that gets across what we think and feel. That it is a unique, individual perception is just a fact of life. Just because no two people will ever have identical morals does not in any way make communication about them impossible. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ The point is really, there has to be some common ground in experience, or communication is impossible. As I said earlier, why discount elements of our experience that appear to have a normative element to them. The meaning of something has to be on some level commonly accessible. Of course there is going to be some common ground. The only time that might not happen is between a hard-core Bible thumper and someone completely amoral. That would be a rare pairing. Most people can find some moral common ground. Again with the private language argument in hand, how you explain this moral ground if it's all just subjective perception. Thats my point. Valid or invalid are not considerations when it comes to morals. Depends on your moral system. Heck on the deliberate structure of both utilitarianism and kantianism I find it hard to state that both might be completely unreconciable with validity as a concept. One has the morality that one has and that is it. How and why someone has come by theirs is a complex process. The only yardstick with which to measure another person's morality is your own, or a generalized perception of the morality of a particular social group (within which individual morals will still differ). I disagree, have you heard of Christine Koresgaard's work on normativity? It's some fairly imaginative work on Kant. Morality stemming from the human ability to set value and have meta states. It's not stricly relevant to our present dicussion, but at the same time I think it's a new candidate for a 'yardstick'. Edited by unenlightened on 07/21/09 - 04:43 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.