Peterdjones comments on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism

Peterdjones 2 Jun 2011 1:02 UTC
−2 points

So it’s impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same?

If they disagree and they are both being rational, where’s the objectivity?

I see no reason why “forbidden” in the moral sense should be objective.

Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don’t like it.
- Manfred 2 Jun 2011 1:56 UTC
  2 points
  Parent
  
  So it’s impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same?
  
  If they disagree and they are both being rational, where’s the objectivity?
  
  I agree, it doesn’t look like there is much in this concept.
  
  I see no reason why “forbidden” in the moral sense should be objective.
  
  Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don’t like it.
  
  Okay. “If you don’t stop, I will shoot you.”
  
  But seriously, WTF? Is that supposed to be an argument that if something is morally forbidden to one person it should be the same for another person?
  - Peterdjones 2 Jun 2011 2:23 UTC
    −2 points
    Parent
    
    I agree, it doesn’t look like there is much [objectivity] in this concept.
    
    If you don’t go looking for it, you won’t find it. As is so ofen the case on LW, that door has been shut without even trying to see what is behind it.
    
    I see no reason why “forbidden” in the moral sense should be objective
    
    Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don’t like it.
    
    Okay. “If you don’t stop, I will shoot you.”
    
    Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me.
    
    If you have an option other than
    
    a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing
    
    or
    
    b) Tyranny
    
    I’d be glad to hear it. I know I have.
    
    But seriously, WTF? Is that supposed to be an argument that if something is morally forbidden to one person it should be the same for another person?
    
    Of course. No one should murder. I’m surprised you find that surprising.
    - Manfred 2 Jun 2011 5:04 UTC
      2 points
      Parent
      
      If you don’t go looking for it, you won’t find it.
      
      Rather than chastising me, why not explain how “forbidden” is objective?
      
      Re: shooting people: it was a joke. The WTF was not with respect to shooting people. It was because your demand was a non sequitur.
      - Peterdjones 2 Jun 2011 12:48 UTC
        −3 points
        Parent
        
        Rather than chastising me, why not explain how “forbidden” is objective?
        
        For start: are you aware of various (googleablle) standard defenses of metaethical ojectivism?
        Manfred 5 Jun 2011 22:33 UTC
        1 point
        Parent
        Is there some other place where you have defended metaethical (or even moral) objectivism?
        Manfred 2 Jun 2011 22:06 UTC
        1 point
        Parent
        I am aware of various defenses and find them all thoroughly lacking, but I doubt I have exhausted even the common possibilities. Go for it.
    - Nornagest 2 Jun 2011 6:42 UTC
      0 points
      Parent
      
      Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me. If you have an option other than
      
      a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing
      
      or
      
      b) Tyranny
      
      I’d be glad to hear it. I know I have.
      
      Assuming you’re generalized that properly and aren’t seriously arguing the most egregious false dichotomy I’ve seen in weeks, I’m afraid that condemning the set of ethics based on social or personal consequences as “tyranny” amounts to dismissing an entire school of thought on aesthetic grounds. Forgive me if I don’t find such a thing particularly convincing.
      - Peterdjones 2 Jun 2011 12:46 UTC
        −2 points
        Parent
        As I stated: “I know I have” I don’t think a) and b) are the only options either. I don’t see why the decision to call force-based ethics “tryrrany” counts as “aesthetic”. I don’t see why you are so hostile to reason-based ethics. You and various other people seem to think the rational/ojeciive approach to ethics needs to be dispensed with, but you don’t say why.