Yes, that was a weird result and what you say seems intuitively about right.
I'm not sure people parse "should" and "should be a law" so much in this time of ever-growing populations and regulations.
Yes, that was a weird result and what you say seems intuitively about right.
You seem to be confusing two concepts here --- you're equating objectivity with universal laws. "Objective" (and "subjective"), like truth and falsity, are properties of propositions, not features of the universe. They have nothing to do with universal laws. A proposition is objectively true if its truth conditions are public, i.e., verifiable by any suitably situated observer, e.g., "Paris is the capital of France,;" "Donald Trump is President of the United States." A proposition is subjective if it's truth conditions are available only to the utterer: "Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla;" "I have a headache."Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 7th, 2017, 7:38 am
If this really is the definition of "relativism" then I am certainly no relativist myself. I find the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth extremely useful. I couldn't possibly live without it. I've argued that point several times with posters on this website. RJG is particular example of a poster who springs to mind.
However, if "relativism" means "the idea that morals are created within human minds and do not exist objectively as a property of the universe" then, in that sense, I am a relativist. I find it useful to believe that such things as matter, energy and gravity exist independently of any human's subjective perception of them. I find it useful to believe that these things existed before humans existed and will continue to exist after we are gone. I don't find it useful to believe that of concepts like right and wrong or love and hate.
Excellent. But now suppose we find some such common goal. Suppose also that a particular set of moral rules (propositions asserting "oughts" and "ought nots") can be shown, logically or empirically, to better advance that goal than any known alternative set. Clearly those propositions will be objectively true. They will not be universal, however, since they may not be true given a different goal.The only way to convince people with differing moral codes to change their views is to seek underlying common goals. Very very frequently, arguments which appear to be about values turn out to be arguments about facts. Arguments about facts can, at least theoretically, be settled with appeals to empirical evidence.
That presumed inconsistency is due to the ambiguity of the term "white supremacy." The actual questions asked in the poll (according to the HP report) were: Do you agree or disagree that 1) all races are equal, and 2) all races should be treated equally? Large majorities answered both questions affirmatively.Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 4:32 pm Opinion polls cited in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/r ... a0e141b3c8
suggest that although a large majority of the US population reject the concept of "white supremacy" when described by those two words, very large numbers of people seem to agree with some of the aims of white supremacist groups.
I don't think the concept of universality is relevant to what I'm trying to say, but I probably incorrectly gave the impression that it is by using this wording:GE Morton wrote:You seem to be confusing two concepts here --- you're equating objectivity with universal laws. "Objective" (and "subjective"), like truth and falsity, are properties of propositions, not features of the universe. They have nothing to do with universal laws. A proposition is objectively true if its truth conditions are public, i.e., verifiable by any suitably situated observer, e.g., "Paris is the capital of France,;" "Donald Trump is President of the United States." A proposition is subjective if it's truth conditions are available only to the utterer: "Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla;" "I have a headache."
Yes, I agree. In this case we can turn an "ought" into an "is" (as they say) if the "ought" is part of a sentence of this form: "in order to achieve this goal one ought to do this..."GE Morton wrote:Excellent. But now suppose we find some such common goal. Suppose also that a particular set of moral rules (propositions asserting "oughts" and "ought nots") can be shown, logically or empirically, to better advance that goal than any known alternative set. Clearly those propositions will be objectively true. They will not be universal, however, since they may not be true given a different goal.
I certainly agree that inconsistencies are often caused largely by widely different interpretations of words in the English language; particularly "value judgement" words, or words that some people interpret as value judgements and some don't. And assumptions about what people mean by words are often made as a result of labelling people - assuming them to hold a whole series of views that are thought to come together as a package.GE Morton wrote:That presumed inconsistency is due to the ambiguity of the term "white supremacy." The actual questions asked in the poll (according to the HP report) were: Do you agree or disagree that 1) all races are equal, and 2) all races should be treated equally? Large majorities answered both questions affirmatively.
Yes, but unfortunately some people, some of the time, take the word "equal" to mean equal in their physical and/or mental properties as opposed to equal in the rights that are conferred on them as citizens. This mistake seems to be particularly common when discussing gender equality. That's one example of confusion over the word "equal".GE Morton wrote:Most people will take those questions to mean, "Should everyone be treated equally by the law?, i.e., everyone has the same legal status and rights.
I don't think the fact that people choose to associate with and identify with their own group/tribe/family necessarily means that they think that group/tribe/family is superior to others. I wouldn't tend to use that word.GE Morton wrote:That does not imply, however, that those who so answered do not consider their own ethnic group or subculture superior in various ways to other ethnic groups or subcultures. Virtually all members of all groups believe their own group is superior, as evidenced by the fact that they associate primarily with members of their own group and largely share its dogmas and follow its customs. Identifying with or demonstrating a preference for a particular group are de facto expressions of its superiority.
I think one of the questions of moral philosophy is: What methods and devices do we actually use to do to that (the part I've highlighted in bold)? What do we mean by "values" and how do we distinguish them from questions of fact or cause and effect?Fooloso4 wrote:Philosophically sophisticated forms of cultural relativism simply reject the idea of an established absolute, universal, eternal, unchanging moral order that can be appealed to in order to determine what is right and wrong, good or bad. At best what we are able to do is identify and argue in defense of values that we hold to be the best available alternatives.
Thanks Steve. I needed a break. I got too caught up arguing with some here and on another philosophy discussion board who mistake the relentless expounding and defense of their non-self reflexive beliefs for philosophy. It is not entirely an exercise in futility though since with some satisfaction, even though they may not acknowledge it, or even admit it to themselves, over time some become more philosophically informed and begin to defend positions they previously attacked. In some cases it may just be a matter of taking a position contrary to those they are arguing against, but in others they have been forced to retreat to more reasonable and informed positions, even if they believe that they are just holding their ground all along.@Fooloso4: It's good to see you back again.
Good questions. I think we use a combination of reasoned argument, casuistry, self-examination, open mindedness, and good will. We need to recognize that not all moral problems yield good or even satisfactory answers. I think the most promising approach is Aristotle’s: to be guided by the question of what the good life is and what we can do in order to have a good life, to be happy, to achieve personal excellence, and flourish. It is not simply a personal question, it is social or political, the good life not just for me but for everyone. It involves phronesis, or practical wisdom and deliberation. And, it is not a way of reconciling differences, of resolving all moral disagreement.I think one of the questions of moral philosophy is: What methods and devices do we actually use to do to that (the part I've highlighted in bold [At best what we are able to do is identify and argue in defense of values that we hold to be the best available alternatives.] )?What do we mean by "values" and how do we distinguish them from questions of fact or cause and effect?
Well, one major difference is a matter of consequence. We can educate our tastes, but some people are not interested in doing so, and even if they do it is still possible that they prefer McDonald's or pop music to the alternatives. In the end it does not make a whole lot of difference. Values and particularly moral values are of much greater consequence. We might try to find common ground and build from there - we may agree on such things as peaceful coexistence and the right of self-determination and in examining one value against another reflect on how they relate to our common values. But there may still be differences that we cannot reconcile. And in such cases the best reconciliation is to allow our differences to stand. I may be in favor of a woman’s right to abortion and you may be opposed. In such cases we are morally at an impasse. The push and pull takes place on the legal and not simply moral front. How and if such differences will ever be reconciled is unknown.It seems to me that if it really is one value against another value then there's no arguing in defense of one or another, any more than we can argue in defense of tastes.
Ok. That still doesn't quite reach the meaning of "objective" and "subjective" as many philosophers understand it, however. A proposition asserting a paranoid delusion, for example ("Aliens are plotting to kidnap me") purports to be about an external phenomenon, but no evidence for its truth is available to anyone except the proposer. The key is whether the evidence which would confirm or falsify the proposition is publicly accessible.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 6:10 am
I wasn't seeking to draw a distinction between local laws and universal laws, per se. I was seeking to draw a distinction between propositions that purport to be about phenomena that exist outside of and independant from human minds (often referred to as objects) and propositions that do not do that.
I agree. Moral "oughts" become instrumental "oughts" when a particular goal is specified and agreed upon, in the same sense as, "If one wishes to drive a nail, one ought to get a hammer." Such "oughts" merely mean that a certain means is a necessary or at least effective means of attaining a given end. Those are empirical questions, and thus objective. So the starting point of any moral theory must be: What is the purpose of a moral theory, of moral principles and rules? What are we trying to accomplish with them? A major problem with moral philosophy historically has been that it has tried to cover way too much ground; disparate goals are conflated and confused. The inquiry needs to be narrowed and focused.The examples you give of subjective propositions are examples of expressions of personal taste. It is argued by some that utterances about morality are all equivalent to expressions of personal taste and nothing more. Obviously a "moral absolutist" would disagree and would claim that they are expressions of truths that are independent of individual tastes.
As I've said (and as briefly discussed below), I think that they can often appear to be merely expressions of personal taste but actually are expressions of what ought to be done if a particular goal is to be achieved and that, on closer examination, the underlying goals can be shared.
Yes. Most Americans agree with the precept of equality of moral status, which is what the responses to those poll questions indicates. That view does not, however, entail or demand material equality (physical, intellectual, social, or economic equality), and people who hold the former view do not necessarily perceive all groups as equals in those latter respects.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 7:16 amYes, but unfortunately some people, some of the time, take the word "equal" to mean equal in their physical and/or mental properties as opposed to equal in the rights that are conferred on them as citizens. This mistake seems to be particularly common when discussing gender equality. That's one example of confusion over the word "equal".GE Morton wrote:Most people will take those questions to mean, "Should everyone be treated equally by the law?, i.e., everyone has the same legal status and rights.
I'd suggest you wouldn't use that word because of the ambiguity mentioned of the word "equal." But any expression of a preference of A over B is per force a declaration that A is superior to B in some sense.I don't think the fact that people choose to associate with and identify with their own group/tribe/family necessarily means that they think that group/tribe/family is superior to others. I wouldn't tend to use that word.
I'd say that any proposition which references things that it proposes to exist outside of the mind of the utterer counts as an objective proposition, regardless of whether we think they actually do exist outside the mind of the utterer. So the example you gave counts as such, just as much as, for example "The police are trying to kill me." does. It's then up to the listener to test the proposition for truth or falsehood. Of course, the example you gave is implicitly two separate objective propositions:GE Morton wrote:Ok. That still doesn't quite reach the meaning of "objective" and "subjective" as many philosophers understand it, however. A proposition asserting a paranoid delusion, for example ("Aliens are plotting to kidnap me") purports to be about an external phenomenon, but no evidence for its truth is available to anyone except the proposer. The key is whether the evidence which would confirm or falsify the proposition is publicly accessible.
I think it helps to consider specific examples of propositions that appear to deal with morality. How about this from recent global politics:GE Morton wrote:I agree. Moral "oughts" become instrumental "oughts" when a particular goal is specified and agreed upon, in the same sense as, "If one wishes to drive a nail, one ought to get a hammer." Such "oughts" merely mean that a certain means is a necessary or at least effective means of attaining a given end. Those are empirical questions, and thus objective. So the starting point of any moral theory must be: What is the purpose of a moral theory, of moral principles and rules? What are we trying to accomplish with them? A major problem with moral philosophy historically has been that it has tried to cover way too much ground; disparate goals are conflated and confused. The inquiry needs to be narrowed and focused.
Yes, and in the OP I wasn't particularly concerned by the question about equality. I was more interested in the large numbers of people who agreed that "white people are currently under attack in this country". It just seems like a curious thing to believe.GE Morton wrote:Yes. Most Americans agree with the precept of equality of moral status, which is what the responses to those poll questions indicates. That view does not, however, entail or demand material equality (physical, intellectual, social, or economic equality), and people who hold the former view do not necessarily perceive all groups as equals in those latter respects.
Yes, to an extent I think you're right. The reason why I wouldn't say something like "I think my family is superior to other families" is because of the obvious way that a sentence like that, at least in isolation, would generally be misinterpreted. I think very few people would take the word "superior" in that sentence to be a factual comment on my genetic pre-disposition to trust those who are, or who visually appear to be, genetically closer to me. I think they would make a value judgement about me based on that sentence. I think the value judgement would be that I am arrogant.GE Morton wrote:I'd suggest you wouldn't use that word because of the ambiguity mentioned of the word "equal." But any expression of a preference of A over B is per force a declaration that A is superior to B in some sense.
Just saw this thread. Considering all that I have been seeing over the last year especially, I agree that “white people are currently under attack in this country." I guess that makes me a white supremacist? Even assuming the poll is accurate---and I must say the WA Post is not exactly reputable---I don't see how agreeing with this statement makes anyone a white supremacist.Steve3007 wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 4:32 pm Opinion polls cited in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/r ... a0e141b3c8
suggest that although a large majority of the US population reject the concept of "white supremacy" when described by those two words, very large numbers of people seem to agree with some of the aims of white supremacist groups.
For example, nearly a third of people polled agreed that “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage". Astonishingly (to me) 39% agreed that “white people are currently under attack in this country”. Perhaps even more astonishingly, 16% agreed that “marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race”. Only 2/3 of the people polled disagreed with this. So 1/3 of the US population (according to this poll) appear to believe that marriage should be allowed or disallowed based on the social construct of race, as manifested by skin pigmentation.
Am I just being politically correct to find this shocking and worrying? Or am I simply being taken in by the fake-news peddling, liberal mainstream media?
I'd be interested to hear the views of any people reading this who agree with any of the statements I've quoted above and, if so, why they agree with them.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023