The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 12:15 am

Greta wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 10:50 pm
But the "postulates" - as mentioned many times - do NOT apply, and cannot possibly apply, to all "moral agents".
Perhaps you should go back and answer those question I posed earlier, which you have stubbornly refused to answer, and then reconsider that claim.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2776
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix » September 13th, 2019, 1:02 am

GE Morton: Moral theories are prescriptive; they don't try to describe how people behave, or explain why they behave as they do --- that is a job for scientists --- but how they ought to behave.
You moral theory is clearly not prescriptive, it does not tell moral agents how they ought to behave, just how they should not - what they should not do. It's a legal system rather than a moral theory.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi » September 13th, 2019, 6:43 am

GE Morton wrote:
The nature and magnitude of the former presumed threats are controversial and predicted for some indefinite time in the future.
I am amazed you who have such gift of the gab controvert authentic definitive knowledge of climate change which is not "predicted for some indefinite time in the future" but is now and urgent.If you were a simple country man a non-reader, or if you were a liar in the pay of Shell I could understand better.

What would convince you? Jove with an atom bomb? Jahweh speaking directly to Trump? Getting yourself psychoanalysed so the scales fall from your eyes?

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 11:02 am

Felix wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:02 am
GE Morton: Moral theories are prescriptive; they don't try to describe how people behave, or explain why they behave as they do --- that is a job for scientists --- but how they ought to behave.
You moral theory is clearly not prescriptive, it does not tell moral agents how they ought to behave, just how they should not - what they should not do. It's a legal system rather than a moral theory.
The theory generates both duties (required actions) and constraints (prohibited actions). Among the former is a conditional duty to aid.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 11:50 am

Belindi wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 6:43 am

I am amazed you who have such gift of the gab controvert authentic definitive knowledge of climate change . . .
I don't want to turn this thread into a climate change debate, but while there is some definitive knowledge concerning climate change, there is also much speculation and uncertainty. The uncertainty is apparent in this graph of the projections of 90 IPCC models. It looks like a plate of spaghetti. That variance among model results represents uncertainty.

Another open question is whether the net effects of a 2C temperature increase will be harmful or beneficial.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 11:52 am


Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi » September 13th, 2019, 1:04 pm

GE Morton, whatever predictive model you espouse, what you do about it depends on the risk of not doing anything about it. The "'plate of spaghetti" model does not tell you the enormity of the possibility/probability in question.

If some sober man down the pub told you there was a rumour in your neighbourhood your house was largely built of asbestos you would get an architect or builder in pdq , and willingly pay the fee.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2776
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix » September 13th, 2019, 1:58 pm

GE Morton: The theory generates both duties (required actions) and constraints (prohibited actions). Among the former is a conditional duty to aid. Among the former is a conditional duty to aid.
You continue to be disingenuous. There is no "conditional duty to aid" or any other duties stated in your moral theory. In fact, on the contrary, it states (I quote from it), "The theory is neutral as between goods and evils, and the values thereof." and "Agents do not necessarily take an interest in the interests of other agents."
GE Morton: I don't want to turn this thread into a climate change debate, but while there is some definitive knowledge concerning climate change, there is also much speculation and uncertainty. The uncertainty is apparent in this graph of the projections of 90 IPCC models.
Your argument is based on a mere 40 years of climate modeling?! How pitiful.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8074
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Greta » September 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm

GE Morton wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:15 am
Greta wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 10:50 pm
But the "postulates" - as mentioned many times - do NOT apply, and cannot possibly apply, to all "moral agents".
Perhaps you should go back and answer those question I posed earlier, which you have stubbornly refused to answer, and then reconsider that claim.
Again? I have answered all your questions and more.

You love a circular argument, don't you? You must be pretty lonely to prefer playing circular argument games to being left alone in your own Fox/Breaitbart echo chamber mind.

The fact is that your so called "postulates" (ie. naive guesswork) cannot possibly apply to all "moral agents" (a meaningless, woolly term). This is so incredibly obvious yet you have no understanding why this is the case, even after having numerous people try to insert a little logic into your resistant cranium.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 7:29 pm

Greta wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm

Again? I have answered all your questions and more.
My oh my. I've asked you four times to answer those two simple, yes/no questions. Four times you have deflected or evaded them, usually followed with some surly ad hominem. And now you're claiming to have answered them. Are you perhaps developing Alzheimer's?
The fact is that your so called "postulates" (ie. naive guesswork) cannot possibly apply to all "moral agents" (a meaningless, woolly term).
Ah. So "moral agent" is a "meaningless, woolly" term? Even though it is a key term in the standard lexicon of nearly all modern moral philosophers, who seem to understand it well enough? There are many discussions of that term's meaning on the web. Perhaps if you peruse a few of them some of that "wooliness" will disappear.

As for whether my postulates "cannot possibly apply to all moral agents," I'll pose those those two questions yet again:

I gave a definition of "harm" which is empirical. Are claims of harm using that definition objective? Yes or no?

I also gave some traits I claimed were universal among humans: "All humans deem certain things to be good, that what they deem good differs from person to person, and that they act to secure what they deem to be good, i.e., people act to maintain or increase their welfare."

Are those facts universal among humans (adult humans with normal faculties)? Yes or no?

Let's see if we get yes or no answers this time.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 7:51 pm

For some clarity on this issue here is the full set of definitions and postulates of the theory:

-----------------

A Theory of Public Morality

Definitions:

A Moral Agent is a sentient creature who
a) has interests and some capacity for pursuing them, and
b) is capable of recognizing other qualifying creatures as moral agents who likewise have interests, which may differ from his own, and
c) is capable of understanding and formulating moral principles and rules and acknowledges the need for them in a moral field.

A Moral Field is a setting wherein there exists more than one moral agent, and wherein it is possible for each moral agent to interact with at least one other moral agent (i.e., a social setting).

An Interest is a good or an evil.

A Good is a thing, condition, or state of affairs which an agent seeks to acquire or retain.
a) A Means Good is a good sought because the agent believes the good is necessary or useful for obtaining an end good.
b) An End Good is a good sought by the agent “for itself,” i.e., because he believes it in se will afford him some benefit or satisfaction.

An Evil is a thing, condition, or state of affairs which an agent seeks to avoid or be rid of.

The Value of a good is given by what the agent will give up to acquire or retain it (positive value), or to avoid or be rid of it (negative value).

An Interaction is an encounter among two or more moral agents whereby an interest of at least one of the agents is affected, either positively (pursuit of the interest is furthered) or negatively (pursuit of the interest is hindered).

A Moral Duty is an obligation upon a moral agent to perform a specific act given specific circumstances, derived from and commanded by a sound moral theory.

A Moral Constraint is an obligation upon a moral agent to refrain from a specific act, given specific circumstances, derived from and commanded by a sound moral theory.

Postulates:

1. Postulate of Liberty: There are no a priori moral duties or constraints. The only duties and constraints binding upon moral agents are those derived from a sound moral theory.
Corollary: Postulate of Free Agency: The agents in the moral field are not parties to nor bound a priori by any universal agreement or compact.
Corollary: Postulate of Autonomy: The agents in the moral field are not related as elements of an organic unity, and are not subject to any external imperatives or constraints other than those imposed by the laws of nature.

2. Postulate of Relativity: All goods and evils, and the values thereof, are relative to moral agents, and are not defined except with reference to moral agent (a valuer). I.e., “X is good (or evil)” is ill-formed and non-cognitive. “P deems X to be good” is well-formed and cognitive. Likewise, “The value of X is V” is ill-formed and non-cognitive. “The value of X to P is V” is well-formed and cognitive.

3. Postulate of Individuality: Goods and evils and the values thereof differ among agents in the moral field.

4. Postulate of Indifference: Agents do not necessarily take an interest in the interests of other agents.

5. Postulate of Equal Agency: All agents in the moral field are of equal moral status, i.e., all duties and constraints generated by the theory are equally binding on all.
Corollary: Postulate of Neutrality: The theory is neutral as between goods and evils, and the values thereof, as defined by agents.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 7:59 pm

Belindi wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:04 pm
GE Morton, whatever predictive model you espouse, what you do about it depends on the risk of not doing anything about it. The "'plate of spaghetti" model does not tell you the enormity of the possibility/probability in question.
What the spaghetti plate shows you is how much uncertainty there is as to the "enormity" of that problem. Per the projections of the models at the bottom of the chart the problem is fairly minor.

Please compare the statistics for death from a road traffic accident, and death from an aeroplane accident. There are more deaths from the former than from the latter. But most people dread the latter more than the former and will give more thought to avoiding death in an aeroplane that falls out of the sky.

GE Morton
Posts: 1045
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton » September 13th, 2019, 8:06 pm

Felix wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:58 pm
There is no "conditional duty to aid" or any other duties stated in your moral theory. In fact, on the contrary, it states (I quote from it), "The theory is neutral as between goods and evils, and the values thereof." and "Agents do not necessarily take an interest in the interests of other agents."
If you're quoting from the "Theory of Public Morality" thread, no duties or constraints are stated there. Only the definitions and postulates. A duty to aid is derivable from those postulates and the Axiom. That duty has been discussed on this forum, though I can't recall which thread.
GE Morton: I don't want to turn this thread into a climate change debate, but while there is some definitive knowledge concerning climate change, there is also much speculation and uncertainty. The uncertainty is apparent in this graph of the projections of 90 IPCC models.
Your argument is based on a mere 40 years of climate modeling?!
Well, yes. Those models are the entire basis of the IPCC's projections.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2776
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix » September 13th, 2019, 9:25 pm

GE Morton: A duty to aid is derivable from those postulates and the Axiom.
Well then, state it, and explain how an objective duty or duties can be derived from the relative subjective values you outline in your moral theory, i.e., "All goods and evils, and the values thereof, are relative to moral agents;" "Goods and evils and the values thereof differ among agents;" and "Agents do not necessarily take an interest in the interests of other agents." As far as I can see, those postulates will not yield any objective moral precepts.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8074
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Greta » September 14th, 2019, 12:56 am

GE Morton wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 7:29 pm
Greta wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 4:27 pm

Again? I have answered all your questions and more.
My oh my. I've asked you four times to answer those two simple, yes/no questions. Four times you have deflected or evaded them, usually followed with some surly ad hominem. And now you're claiming to have answered them. Are you perhaps developing Alzheimer's?
The issue, my fine Dunning-Kruger afflicted friend, is that I answered all of your questions long ago.

Your unquestioning belief in fruitcake ideologies leads you to spend all these pages trying to prove that your own values are universal.

I expect that most other Trumpians believe that they alone are privy to universal values. That's the way to play the game these days, isn't it? Never admit fault. Never admit that you don't know everything. Always pretend to be perfect - which includes the belief that one could ascribe to a truly objective moral code.

GE Morton wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 7:29 pm
E Morton" post_id=337779 time=1568417349 user_id=47101]
The fact is that your so called "postulates" (ie. naive guesswork) cannot possibly apply to all "moral agents" (a meaningless, woolly term).
Ah. So "moral agent" is a "meaningless, woolly" term? Even though it is a key term in the standard lexicon of nearly all modern moral philosophers, who seem to understand it well enough? There are many discussions of that term's meaning on the web. Perhaps if you peruse a few of them some of that "wooliness" will disappear.

As for whether my postulates "cannot possibly apply to all moral agents," I'll pose those those two questions yet again:

I gave a definition of "harm" which is empirical. Are claims of harm using that definition objective? Yes or no?

I also gave some traits I claimed were universal among humans: "All humans deem certain things to be good, that what they deem good differs from person to person, and that they act to secure what they deem to be good, i.e., people act to maintain or increase their welfare."

Are those facts universal among humans (adult humans with normal faculties)? Yes or no?

Let's see if we get yes or no answers this time.
You must have terrible calluses, Chuckie.

Yes, claims of harm are all subjective. Obviously.

No, not all humans act to "increase their welfare". Obviously. If you haven't noticed this then you really are living in La La Land.

As I had answered before, but never mind.

Post Reply