The philosophy thread general discussion

Find a Two and show it to me, I really want to see it.

The Other Wiki says:

Essentially, Moral Relativism is the idea that different people have different moral standards and you can't just say x behaviour is wrong without contradicting someone else.

Moral Nihilism is the idea that morality is inherently meaningless and that nothing is right or wrong.

One says that morals exist but they're different for everyone. The other one says, basically, that morals are an illusion that don't actually exist.

EDIT: Ninja'd

Here you go.◊

edited 30th Jan '13 2:47:31 PM by Zendervai

I know this! It came up in class

Moral nihilism is saying that "morality is not objective, so it doesn't really exist." You don't believe in the concept of morality because you can't come up with an objective formulation for it.

Moral relativism is a "morality is not objective but it still exists; it's inherently subjective."

(Ninjad twice)

edited 30th Jan '13 2:48:12 PM by Trivialis

What does Wrong mean?

You have shown me the symbol that represents two.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:48:00 PM by Matues

That was a joke. I get what you mean though.

Numbers are a concept that does exist without articulation as you can have two of something, but numbers can't exist on their own. They are given meaning by whatever you are using the numbers for.

I really didn't like a big chunk of algebra because it was focused on moving two X's around without a way to solve it, rendering all the numbers utterly meaningless.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:52:46 PM by Zendervai

See, that's the problem. People invariably have different opinions on what is the "greatest good" and what is morally right. We have people who hold Freedom as their greatest good, or Truth, or some other abstract concept.

Now, I consider myself a utilitarian, so I hold "long term happiness" as my goal. However, it's difficult, because what makes someone happy is both subjective, and differs from person to person.

However, I think the sheer amount of difference definitions for "good", and "morally right" makes it clear that morality is subjective, and a human concept. However, I don't think that it's any less important for being a human concept. Rather, I think the fact that it effects everyone to some degree or another makes it one of the most important things in our lives.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:51:05 PM by DrTentacles

What does Wrong mean?

That's a hard question to answer, though if you want to see, say, one suggestion for example, you can look at what Kant said in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. That does not mean the answer doesn't exist; it simply means I don't fully know that answer. That's what it means to be an objectivist in terms of morality.

People invariably have different opinions on what is the "greatest good" and what is morally right.

...

I think the sheer amount of difference definitions for "good", and "morally right" makes it clear that morality is subjective.

Many conflicting does not say that there can't be a true one. That's a subjectivist trap that objectivists watch out for. Different opinions can exist, but when we talk about truth, those are different opinions on what we think is that truth.

Now, I consider myself a utilitarian, so I hold "long term happiness" as my goal. However, it's difficult, because what makes someone happy is both subjective, and differs from person to person.

How a person is satisfied can vary depending on the person, yes, because people have different tastes. But that's like saying different baskets come in different sizes; if the principle is "fill all baskets halfway", that principle can still be objectively sound. If you think this principle should apply universally, I think you can call yourself an objective utilitarian.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:55:47 PM by Trivialis

Hey, thanks for the answers, everybody! That really helped.

I no longer take, "Please look at X book by Y" as a valid form of debating.

Mostly because it's a bit of a cop out.

"I can't explain, so I'm killing this debate by directing you to something else."

Let's try a different line of though then.

Why do you think truth is objective?

Also: The term Subjectivist Trap raises mental flags in the same way the word Liberal does when uttered by anyone in a conservative political ad.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:57:40 PM by Matues

What? I never claimed that I fully agree with Kant; I'm just offering an interesting example. I'm not saying the answer is there, necessarily. My real point was that just because I personally can't answer a question doesn't necessarily mean the answer doesn't exist.

Also, I suggest you don't bring political tone here.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:58:10 PM by Trivialis

Question, because I'm getting confused. Do you believe that morality is an objective truth in that applies to the universe in a way similar to...gravity? (Not the best example, but what I mean as in it's somehow an impersonal force, independent of humans), or that it's objective in that all humans have something they consider good, and that you can boil that concept down into something like "What allows me to be happy in the long term/live a fulfilled life, and allows other to live a fulfilled life."

edited 30th Jan '13 2:59:03 PM by DrTentacles

I'm telling you my opinion on why I don't think referring to a book is an adequate response. That is all.

The main problem is that by the time I find and read through said book, the debate is likely over.

I'm using politics as an metaphor. I have no intention of discussing them.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:00:05 PM by Matues

It's a suggestion. In case I wasn't being clear: I'm not trying to refute something you said in a debate; I'm trying to introduce a interesting philosopher as a discussion topic, along the side.

Not the physical universe, but the rather more abstract sense of actuality, I guess? Like, someone that advocates a particular moral theory would simply argue that it's true, and not bring the settings of domain into question.

I'm not sure I get your second point; that seems more like common ground than objectivity.

The main problem is I'm trying hard to understand what you are saying.

You say that Morality is Objective, but can't say why?

I believe at least basics of morality can be absolutes. I just think that even if it's hard to pinpoint the formula, it's there.

I should rather say why I don't agree with moral relativism, how I would understand it. It says that for person A this is moral, for person B that is moral, and they're both right. I instead think that they both think himself/herself is right.

Yeah, well I'm of the same view. They aren't "both right." I think, however, you can say that first, there is no true "right" in morality, and second, that some forms of morality are superior (by my definition, better at causing long-term happiness for as many people as possible) to others.

At least you don't do what so many Moral Objectivists I've seen have, and go say "THE MORALS OF THE UNIVERSE CONVENIENTLY LINE UP WITH MY OWN!"

Which is nice.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:30:41 PM by Matues

This is basically my point of view. It's kind of hard for me to explain.

This reminds of a book I read centered around a school that functioned entirely on an incredibly extreme version of moral relativism, as an experiment to find out if it is possible to convince people that objective truth doesn't exist. It was a very odd book.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:36:51 PM by Zendervai

The thing is, if there were absolute, objective moral laws, then their nature and existence could be observed and verified as true for all people at all times. Also, if they were objective and absolute, then "immorality" would be meaningless because immoral acts would be impossible. We can't break the laws of gravity or electomagnetism, we can only gain a greater understanding of them.

Or to put it in syllogistic form:

All objective laws are universal and unbreakable. Moral laws are not universal. Moral laws are not unbreakable. Therefore moral laws are not objective laws.

Not unless humans are gods. Humans are not going to be able to 100% verify all existing truths. What is true doesn't guarantee that it will always be observable.

Who says a law can't be broken? A moral law says "X is wrong" not "X is impossible". If you broke a law, you've done something wrong, not impossible.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:44:41 PM by Trivialis

We puny humans have already managed to unlock the basic laws underlying everyday life through observation and experimentation. We can observe cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. You think we couldn't discover objective moral laws if we tried? And we have tried.

Who says X is wrong? You? Me? Neptune, god of the sea? That's just somebody's opinion. An objective law can't be broken. If you can break gravity, post it on You Tube.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:54:55 PM by Lawyerdude

Another culture, just as effective as the one that says "X is wrong", disagrees. It maintains that "X is right in Y-type situations, and wrong in Z-type". Yet another culture thinks both are silly. "X is is not harmful, and therefore is right."

Which is objective truth? How do you test it if each and every culture has proofs it uses to defend its views?

edited 30th Jan '13 3:52:36 PM by Euodiachloris

We can observe things only because we're blessed with the equipment and opportunity to compile theories. There's a reason why post-apocalyptic stories feature humans with limited knowledge.

In the end, our measurements are limited to what we can grasp. While we can discover something under a specific situation, there's no guarantee that we will in the general case. And it's not 100%. And by that I mean we don't have equipment to measure the electron spin of the 3rd electron attached to the atom located in the 10.0000° north of the equator of Pluto.

You're not getting it. First, existence of a different opinion simply means one of us is wrong. It doesn't mean a right truth can't exist.

Gravity can't be broken because the law of gravity says "x does not happen". If the law instead said "x is wrong", and you do x, that's possible, just wrong. What's impossible is making x right.

edited 30th Jan '13 3:57:46 PM by Trivialis

Once you get that small or that far away, it becomes irrelevant to our everyday life. Morality by its very essence involves our everyday life. If it existed, if we could grasp it objectively, don't you think we would have by now?

edited 30th Jan '13 3:57:27 PM by Lawyerdude

Irrelevance is just an arbitrary, pragmatic distinction made by humans. In absolute terms, everything is relevant. Meaning, if your answer is 0.1 x 10^-23 off, you're wrong.

We have some loose basics: ex. don't kill, don't be rude to other people in a civil forum, and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably deluded. They're loose because of human limitations on verifying the truth, not because truth itself is wishy-washy.

Like I said, that's up for debate by philosophers. But just because something isn't known doesn't mean that something isn't there.