Likewise, a given action can be ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ at the same time, though in different senses.
Are you sure that people mean different things by ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or are they just using different criteria to judge whether something is right or wrong.
Isn’t this done by appealing to the values of the majority?
It’s done by changing the values of the majority..by showing the majority that
they ought (in a rational sense of ought)) think differently. The point being that if
correct reasoning eventually leads to uniform results, we call that objective.
Only if — independent of values — certain values are rational and others are not
Does it work or not? Have majorities not been persuaded that its wrong, if convenient, to oppress minorities?
Are you sure that people mean different things by ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or are they just using different criteria to judge whether something is right or wrong.
What could ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean, beyond the criteria used to make the judgment?
It’s done by changing the values of the majority..by showing the majority that they ought (in a rational sense of ought)) think differently.
Sure, if you’re talking about appealing to people to change their non-fundamental values to be more in line with their fundamental values. But I’ve still never heard how reason can have anything to say about fundamental values.
Does it work or not? Have majorities not been persuaded that its wrong, if convenient, to oppress minorities?
So far as I can tell, only by reasoning from their pre-existing values.
What could ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean, beyond the criteria used to make the judgment?
“Should be rewarded” and “should be punished”. If there was evidence of people
saying that the good should be punished, that would indicate that some people
are disagreeing about the meaning of good/right. Otherwise, disagreements
are about criteria for assigning the term.
So far as I can tell, only by reasoning from their pre-existing values.
But not for all of them (since some of then get discarded) and not
only from moral values (since people need to value reason to be reasoned with).
Are you sure that people mean different things by ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or are they just using different criteria to judge whether something is right or wrong.
It’s done by changing the values of the majority..by showing the majority that they ought (in a rational sense of ought)) think differently. The point being that if correct reasoning eventually leads to uniform results, we call that objective.
Does it work or not? Have majorities not been persuaded that its wrong, if convenient, to oppress minorities?
What could ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean, beyond the criteria used to make the judgment?
Sure, if you’re talking about appealing to people to change their non-fundamental values to be more in line with their fundamental values. But I’ve still never heard how reason can have anything to say about fundamental values.
So far as I can tell, only by reasoning from their pre-existing values.
“Should be rewarded” and “should be punished”. If there was evidence of people saying that the good should be punished, that would indicate that some people are disagreeing about the meaning of good/right. Otherwise, disagreements are about criteria for assigning the term.
But not for all of them (since some of then get discarded) and not only from moral values (since people need to value reason to be reasoned with).