Okay. I think I’ve explained the justification then. Specific moral systems aren’t necessarily interchangeable from person to person, but they can still be explained and justified in a general sense. “My values tell me X, therefore X is moral” is the form of justification that I’ve been defending.
No I don’t. I need to be stronger than the people who want to murder me, or to live in a society that deters murder. If someone wants to murder me, it’s probably not the best strategy to start trying to convince them that they’re being immoral.
You’re making an argumentum ad consequentum. You don’t decide metaethical issues by deciding what kind of morality it would be ideal to have and then working backwards. Just because you don’t like the type of system that morality leads to overall doesn’t mean that you’re justified in ignoring other moral arguments.
The benefit of my system is that it’s right for me to murder people if I want to murder them. This means I can do things like self defense or killing Nazis and pedophiles with minimal moral damage. This isn’t a reason to support my system, but it is kind of neat.
No I don’t. I need to be stronger than the people who want to murder me,
That’s giving up on morality not defending subjective morality.
or to live in a society that deters murder.
Same problem. That’s either group morality or non morality.
If someone wants to murder me, it’s probably not the best strategy to start trying to convince them that they’re being immoral.
I didn;t say it was the best practical strategy. The moral an the practical are differnt things. I am saying
that for morality to be what it is, it needs to offer reasons for people to not act on some of their first order
values. That morality is not legality or brue force or a a magic spell is not relevant.
You’re making an argumentum ad consequentum. You don’t decide metaethical issues by deciding what kind of morality it would be ideal to have and then working backwards.
I am starting wth what kind of morality it would be adequate to have. If you can’t bang in a nail with it, it isn’t a hammer.
Just because you don’t like the type of system that morality leads to overall
Where on eath did I say that?
The benefit of my system is that it’s right for me to murder people if I want to murder them.
That’s not a benefit, because murder is just the sort of thing morlaity is supposed to condemn.. Hammers are for nails, not screws, and morality is not for “i can do whatever I want regardless”.
This means I can do things like self defense
Justifiable self defense is not murder. You seem to have confused ethical objectiv ism (morality is not just personal preference) with ethical absolutism (moral principles have no exceptions). Read yer wikipedia!
That’s giving up on morality not defending subjective morality.
Morality is a guide for your own actions, not a guide for getting people to do what you want.
Same problem. That’s either group morality or non morality.
Rational self interested individuals decide to create a police force.
Argumentum ad consequentums are still invalid.
I didn;t say it was the best practical strategy. The moral an the practical are differnt things. I am saying that for morality to be what it is, it needs to offer reasons for people to not act on some of their first order values. That morality is not legality or brue force or a a magic spell is not relevant.
Sure, but morality needs to have motivational force or its useless and stupid. Why should I care? Why should the burglar? If you’re going to keep insisting that morality is what’s preventing people from doing evil things, you need to explain how your accounting of morality overrules inherent motivation and desire, and why its justified in doing that.
I am starting wth what kind of morality it would be adequate to have. If you can’t bang in a nail with it, it isn’t a hammer.
This is not how metaethics works. You don’t get to start with a predefined notion of adequate. That’s the opposite of objectivity. By neglecting metaethics, you’re defending a model that’s just as subjective as mine, except that you don’t acknowledge that and you seek to vilify those who don’t share your preferences.
Where on eath did I say that?
You’re arguing that subjective morality can’t be right because it would lead to conclusions you find undesirable, like random murders.
That’s not a benefit, because murder is just the sort of thing morlaity is supposed to condemn.. Hammers are for nails, not screws, and morality is not for “i can do whatever I want regardless”.
Stop muddling the debate with unjustified assumptions about what morality is for. If you want to talk about something else, fine. My definition of morality is that morality is what tells individuals what they should and should not do. That’s all I intend to talk about.
You’ve conceded numerous things in this conversation, also. I’m done arguing with you because you’re ignoring any point that you find inconvenient to your position and because you haven’t shown that you’re rational enough to escape your dogma.
No, it is largely about regulating interactions such as rape theft and murder.
not a guide for getting people to do what you want.
I never said morality is to make others do what I want. That is persistent straw man on your part
Rational self interested individuals decide to create a police force.
So?
Argumentum ad consequentums are still invalid.
“It’s not a hammer if it can’t bang in nail” isn’t invalid.
Sure, but morality needs to have motivational force or its useless and stupid. Why should I care?
If your ar rational you will care abotu raitonality based morality. If you are not...what are you doing on LW?
Why should the burglar? If you’re going to keep insisting that morality is what’s preventing people from doing evil things, you need to explain how your accounting of morality overrules inherent motivation and desire, and why its justified in doing that.
The motivation to be rational is a motivation. I didn’t say non-motivations override motivations. Higher order and lower order, remember.
This is not how metaethics works. You don’t get to start with a predefined notion of adequate.
Why not? I can see apriori what would make a hammer adequate.
You’re arguing that subjective morality can’t be right because it would lead to conclusions you find undesirable, like random murders.
Conclusions that just about anyne would find undersirable. Objection to random murder is not some
weird pecadillo of mine.
Stop muddling the debate with unjustified assumptions about what morality is for.
My definition of morality is that morality is what tells individuals what they should and should not do.
What’s the differnce? If you should not do a murder (your defintiion), then a potential interaction has been regulated (my version).;
You’ve conceded numerous things in this conversation, also. I’m done arguing with you because you’re ignoring any point that you find inconvenient to your position
Please list them.
and because you haven’t shown that you’re rational enough to escape your dogma.
No, it is largely about regulating interactions such as rape theft and murder.
This is a subset of my possible individual actions. Every interaction is an action.
Morality is not political, which is what you’re making it into. Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s all.
I never said morality is to make others do what I want. That is persistent straw man on your part
You’re using morality for more than individual actions. Therefore, you’re using it for other people’s actions, for persuading them to do what you want to do. Otherwise, your attempt to distinguish your view from mine fails.
“It’s not a hammer if it can’t bang in nail” isn’t invalid.
Then you’re using a different definition of morality which has more constraints than my definition. My definition is that morality is anything that tells an individual which actions should or should not be taken, and that no other requirements are necessary for morality to exist. If your conception of morality guides individual actions as well, but also has additional requirements, I’m contending that your additional requirements have no valid metaphysical foundation.
The motivation to be rational is a motivation. I didn’t say non-motivations override motivations. Higher order and lower order, remember.
Rationality is not a motivation, it is value-neutral.
Why not? I can see apriori what would make a hammer adequate.
You can start with a predefined notion of adequate, but only if you justify it explicitly.
What moral system do you defend? How does rationality result in moral principles? Can you give me an example?
Conclusions that just about anyne would find undersirable. Objection to random murder is not some weird pecadillo of mine.
Not relevant. People are stupid. Argumentum ad consequentums are logically invalid. Use Wikipedia if you doubt this.
If your assumptions were justified, I missed it. Please justify them for me.
What’s the differnce? If you should not do a murder (your defintiion), then a potential interaction has been regulated (my version).;
Our definitions overlap in some instances but aren’t identical. You add constraints, such as the idea that any moral system which justifies murder is not a valid moral system. Yours is also narrower than mine because mine holds that morality exists even in the context of wholly isolated individuals, whereas yours says morality is about interpersonal interactions.
Please list them.
I was mistaken because I hadn’t seen your other comment. I read the comments out of order. My apologies.
What dogma?
You’re arguing from definitions instead of showing the reasoning process which starts with rational principles and ends up with moral principles.
It is not ratinal to decide actions which are inteactions on the preferneces of one party alone.
Morality is not political
Weren’t you saying that the majority decide what is moral?
You’re using morality for more than individual actions.
Arent you?
Therefore, you’re using it for other people’s actions, for persuading them to do what you want to do.
Everybody is using it for their and everybody elses actions. I play no central role.
If your conception of morality guides individual actions as well, but also has additional requirements, I’m contending that your additional requirements have no valid metaphysical foundation.
That depends on whether or not your “individual actions” inlcude interacitons. if they do, the interests
of the other parties need to be taken into account.
Rationality is not a motivation, it is value-neutral.
How does anyone end up raitional if no-one is motivated to be? Are you quite sure you haven’t confused
“rationality is value neutral because if you don’t get any values out of it your don’t put into it”
with
“No one would ever value rationality”
You can start with a predefined notion of adequate, but only if you justify it explicitly.
I don’t have to justify common defintions.
What moral system do you defend?
Where did I say I was defending one? I said subjectivism doen’t work.
Argumentum ad consequentums are logically invalid.
You cannot logically conclude that something exists in objective reality because you like its consequences.
But morality doens’t exist in objective reality. it is a human creation, and humans are entitled to reject
versions of ti that don’t work becaue they dont work.
If your assumptions were justified, I missed it. Please justify them for me.
The burden is on you to explain how your definition “morality is about right and wrong” is different
from mine: “morality is about the requation of conduct”.
Our definitions overlap in some instances but aren’t identical. You add constraints, such as the idea that any moral system which justifies murder is not a valid moral system.
It obviiusly isn’t. If our definitions differ, mine is right.
Yours is also narrower than mine because mine holds that morality exists even in the context of wholly isolated individuals, whereas yours says morality is about interpersonal interactions.
I said “largely”.
You’re arguing from definitions
You say that like its a bad thing.
instead of showing the reasoning process which starts with rational principles and ends up with moral principles.
Why would I need to do that to show that subjectivism is wrong?
Okay. I think I’ve explained the justification then. Specific moral systems aren’t necessarily interchangeable from person to person, but they can still be explained and justified in a general sense. “My values tell me X, therefore X is moral” is the form of justification that I’ve been defending.
Yet again, you run into the problem that you need it to be wrong for other people to murder you, which you can’t justify with your values alone.
No I don’t. I need to be stronger than the people who want to murder me, or to live in a society that deters murder. If someone wants to murder me, it’s probably not the best strategy to start trying to convince them that they’re being immoral.
You’re making an argumentum ad consequentum. You don’t decide metaethical issues by deciding what kind of morality it would be ideal to have and then working backwards. Just because you don’t like the type of system that morality leads to overall doesn’t mean that you’re justified in ignoring other moral arguments.
The benefit of my system is that it’s right for me to murder people if I want to murder them. This means I can do things like self defense or killing Nazis and pedophiles with minimal moral damage. This isn’t a reason to support my system, but it is kind of neat.
That’s giving up on morality not defending subjective morality.
Same problem. That’s either group morality or non morality.
I didn;t say it was the best practical strategy. The moral an the practical are differnt things. I am saying that for morality to be what it is, it needs to offer reasons for people to not act on some of their first order values. That morality is not legality or brue force or a a magic spell is not relevant.
I am starting wth what kind of morality it would be adequate to have. If you can’t bang in a nail with it, it isn’t a hammer.
Where on eath did I say that?
That’s not a benefit, because murder is just the sort of thing morlaity is supposed to condemn.. Hammers are for nails, not screws, and morality is not for “i can do whatever I want regardless”.
Justifiable self defense is not murder. You seem to have confused ethical objectiv ism (morality is not just personal preference) with ethical absolutism (moral principles have no exceptions). Read yer wikipedia!
Morality is a guide for your own actions, not a guide for getting people to do what you want.
Rational self interested individuals decide to create a police force.
Argumentum ad consequentums are still invalid.
Sure, but morality needs to have motivational force or its useless and stupid. Why should I care? Why should the burglar? If you’re going to keep insisting that morality is what’s preventing people from doing evil things, you need to explain how your accounting of morality overrules inherent motivation and desire, and why its justified in doing that.
This is not how metaethics works. You don’t get to start with a predefined notion of adequate. That’s the opposite of objectivity. By neglecting metaethics, you’re defending a model that’s just as subjective as mine, except that you don’t acknowledge that and you seek to vilify those who don’t share your preferences.
You’re arguing that subjective morality can’t be right because it would lead to conclusions you find undesirable, like random murders.
Stop muddling the debate with unjustified assumptions about what morality is for. If you want to talk about something else, fine. My definition of morality is that morality is what tells individuals what they should and should not do. That’s all I intend to talk about.
You’ve conceded numerous things in this conversation, also. I’m done arguing with you because you’re ignoring any point that you find inconvenient to your position and because you haven’t shown that you’re rational enough to escape your dogma.
No, it is largely about regulating interactions such as rape theft and murder.
I never said morality is to make others do what I want. That is persistent straw man on your part
So?
“It’s not a hammer if it can’t bang in nail” isn’t invalid.
If your ar rational you will care abotu raitonality based morality. If you are not...what are you doing on LW?
The motivation to be rational is a motivation. I didn’t say non-motivations override motivations. Higher order and lower order, remember.
Why not? I can see apriori what would make a hammer adequate.
Conclusions that just about anyne would find undersirable. Objection to random murder is not some weird pecadillo of mine.
Calling something unjustified doens’t prove antyhing.
What’s the differnce? If you should not do a murder (your defintiion), then a potential interaction has been regulated (my version).;
Please list them.
What dogma?
This is a subset of my possible individual actions. Every interaction is an action.
Morality is not political, which is what you’re making it into. Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s all.
You’re using morality for more than individual actions. Therefore, you’re using it for other people’s actions, for persuading them to do what you want to do. Otherwise, your attempt to distinguish your view from mine fails.
Then you’re using a different definition of morality which has more constraints than my definition. My definition is that morality is anything that tells an individual which actions should or should not be taken, and that no other requirements are necessary for morality to exist. If your conception of morality guides individual actions as well, but also has additional requirements, I’m contending that your additional requirements have no valid metaphysical foundation.
Rationality is not a motivation, it is value-neutral.
You can start with a predefined notion of adequate, but only if you justify it explicitly.
What moral system do you defend? How does rationality result in moral principles? Can you give me an example?
Not relevant. People are stupid. Argumentum ad consequentums are logically invalid. Use Wikipedia if you doubt this.
If your assumptions were justified, I missed it. Please justify them for me.
Our definitions overlap in some instances but aren’t identical. You add constraints, such as the idea that any moral system which justifies murder is not a valid moral system. Yours is also narrower than mine because mine holds that morality exists even in the context of wholly isolated individuals, whereas yours says morality is about interpersonal interactions.
I was mistaken because I hadn’t seen your other comment. I read the comments out of order. My apologies.
You’re arguing from definitions instead of showing the reasoning process which starts with rational principles and ends up with moral principles.
It is not ratinal to decide actions which are inteactions on the preferneces of one party alone.
Weren’t you saying that the majority decide what is moral?
Arent you?
Everybody is using it for their and everybody elses actions. I play no central role.
That depends on whether or not your “individual actions” inlcude interacitons. if they do, the interests of the other parties need to be taken into account.
How does anyone end up raitional if no-one is motivated to be? Are you quite sure you haven’t confused
“rationality is value neutral because if you don’t get any values out of it your don’t put into it”
with
“No one would ever value rationality”
I don’t have to justify common defintions.
Where did I say I was defending one? I said subjectivism doen’t work.
You cannot logically conclude that something exists in objective reality because you like its consequences. But morality doens’t exist in objective reality. it is a human creation, and humans are entitled to reject versions of ti that don’t work becaue they dont work.
The burden is on you to explain how your definition “morality is about right and wrong” is different from mine: “morality is about the requation of conduct”.
It obviiusly isn’t. If our definitions differ, mine is right.
I said “largely”.
You say that like its a bad thing.
Why would I need to do that to show that subjectivism is wrong?
I don’t want to spend any more time on this. I’m done.