If I thought that morals were totally relative and non-disprovable then I’d give up on them altogether and start building a tower-o’-doom.
I very much doubt it. Analogously, theists subscribing to the divine command theory of ethics who end up losing their faith generally don’t slaughter everyone they know and assemble a giant blasphemous meat-effigy out of the pieces.
Touche. I was speaking for effect: obviously I don’t actually want a tower-o-doom so I wouldn’t build one even if it was morally permissible. On the other hand, if I thought morals were relative, I wouldn’t be able to mount an argument for NOT committing atrocities that didn’t boil down to, ‘please don’t do that’. I think I can mount a better argument than that, so it follows that I think ethical statements are objectively justifiable.
UPDATE: edited the grandparent in response to Nornagest’s accurate criticism.
On the other hand, if I thought morals were relative, I wouldn’t be able to mount an argument for NOT committing atrocities that didn’t boil down to, ‘please don’t do that’.
Do you consider “we prefer nobody do that and are willing to enforce our preferences in that matter against anyone who doesn’t share them” to boil down to “please don’t do that”?
More or less. Both of them are along the lines of ‘don’t do what you want, do what I want instead’. A good moral argument on the other hand should convince the other person to adopt a different set of desires, more along the lines of ‘don’t want what you want, want what I want instead’.
Do you prefer good moral arguments to other methods of altering someone else’s preferences? (Or perhaps I should back up and first ask, do you think there are other methods of altering someone else’s preferences?)
There are other ways of altering people’s preferences, sure. In simple situations where you have the option of argument and think it’ll work I guess I favour moral argument for convincing, since it tends to give the other person more agency. I could give a thorough justification for those opinions but I think we’ve strayed from the topic of conversation a little here.
I very much doubt it. Analogously, theists subscribing to the divine command theory of ethics who end up losing their faith generally don’t slaughter everyone they know and assemble a giant blasphemous meat-effigy out of the pieces.
Touche. I was speaking for effect: obviously I don’t actually want a tower-o-doom so I wouldn’t build one even if it was morally permissible. On the other hand, if I thought morals were relative, I wouldn’t be able to mount an argument for NOT committing atrocities that didn’t boil down to, ‘please don’t do that’. I think I can mount a better argument than that, so it follows that I think ethical statements are objectively justifiable.
UPDATE: edited the grandparent in response to Nornagest’s accurate criticism.
Do you consider “we prefer nobody do that and are willing to enforce our preferences in that matter against anyone who doesn’t share them” to boil down to “please don’t do that”?
More or less. Both of them are along the lines of ‘don’t do what you want, do what I want instead’. A good moral argument on the other hand should convince the other person to adopt a different set of desires, more along the lines of ‘don’t want what you want, want what I want instead’.
OK, fair enough.
Do you prefer good moral arguments to other methods of altering someone else’s preferences? (Or perhaps I should back up and first ask, do you think there are other methods of altering someone else’s preferences?)
There are other ways of altering people’s preferences, sure. In simple situations where you have the option of argument and think it’ll work I guess I favour moral argument for convincing, since it tends to give the other person more agency. I could give a thorough justification for those opinions but I think we’ve strayed from the topic of conversation a little here.
“generally”...?
It sometimes happens.