Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Oct 19, 2016 07:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

That is not true, nor what I asked.

Do you believe that certain actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the feelings or beliefs of an individual, society, or culture?

(Oct 19, 2016 07:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 19, 2016 07:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

That is not true, nor what I asked.

It is true...and all you have to support your denial is your own feelings (and erroneous equivocation and conflation)...which amount to no support whatsoever. Sullenly saying "huh uh" is not an argument (you know...arguments...reasons that actually refute a point).

Quote:Do you believe that certain actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the feelings or beliefs of an individual, society, or culture?

Why on earth would I bother to give you a straight answer when you obviously have no intent to do so yourself? Up until now, I've respected you enough to answer your questions in good faith. But since that respect is not reciprocal...

Again, you are talking about "moral or immoral" when I am refuting your statement about ethics. There are both objectivist and relativist views on morality. But morality cannot evaluate its own merit...that is what ethics is for.

Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense

The good:

Coyne gave a sensible definition of “objective” morality as being the stance that something can be discerned to be “morally wrong” through reasoning about facts about the world, rather than by reference to human opinion.

Except that's the definition of ethics.

I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral. This is the trick the religious have long played, inventing a god in their own image who can back them up by turning “I want …” into “God wants …”.

Completely agree. God or scripture is not an objective criteria.

(5) Rooting morality in “God” is still arbitrary.

A favourite argument of the religious is that you can’t have objective morality without a god. And they are right. What they don’t realise, though, is that you also can’t have an objective morality with a god. After all, plumping for “God’s opinion” instead of human opinion is equally subjective.

Objectivity has nothing to do with any god. A god-based "objective" morality is still open to subjective preference of which god to follow. "Objective morality" IS a bit nonsensical, because even with objective ethical reasoning, there is no absolute way to keep human bias out of any human implemented standard.

The dubious:

Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?

Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?

Preference and desire are not supported arguments. And the proper field for philosophers is ethics, not morality.

Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature, being a product of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary.

So is murder, rape, and conquest.

(Oct 19, 2016 07:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

How many ethical theories can you think of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethical_theories

When you're discussing morality, you're in the field of normative ethics. There are, broadly, only three major theories...virtue, deontological, and consequential. And many would even say that virtue ethics is subsumed in deonotlogical and consequential ethics.

Your little wiki link is composed of things merely tagged as ethics, but most are principles, behavior, or motivational theory.

Seems you either lack the intellectual rigor to figure that out or you're just lazily trolling.

If our feelings are rooted in ''human nature,'' how does it explain why some people are sociopaths, and others are not? Partly, it could be explained as human nature (that we all have the propensity to lack or show empathy for example), but it could be argued that our sense of morality, what matters most to us as individuals, seems to evolve in part, from how we are raised, or ''nurturing'' vs. ''nature.''

(Oct 19, 2016 07:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

No. Ethics deals with moral principles, some of which can be very subjective.

Syne Wrote:When you're discussing morality, you're in the field of normative ethics. There are, broadly, only three major theories...virtue, deontological, and consequential. And many would even say that virtue ethics is subsumed in deonotlogical and consequential ethics.

Your little wiki link is composed of things merely tagged as ethics, but most are principles, behavior, or motivational theory.

They're moral theories. There are actual cases where applied ethics appeals to normative ethics.

"Normative ethics studies what features make an action right or wrong.  Applied ethics attempts to figure out, in actual cases, whether or not certain acts have those features."

This started with your demands for objective views rather than subjective.

I'm curious, though. Which moral theory did you use to determine that homosexuality was wrong?


Do you think that eating meat is ethically defensible?

---

(Oct 20, 2016 01:48 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]If our feelings are rooted in ''human nature,'' how does it explain why some people are sociopaths, and others are not? Partly, it could be explained as human nature (that we all have the propensity to lack or show empathy for example), but it could be argued that our sense of morality, what matters most to us as individuals, seems to evolve in part, from how we are raised, or ''nurturing'' vs. ''nature.''

In their 2014 survey of scientists, many respondents wrote that the dichotomy of nature versus nurture had outlived its usefulness, and should be retired. The reason is that in many fields of research, close feedback loops have been found in which "nature" and "nurture" influence one another constantly, as seen in self-domestication. As in ecology and behavioral epigenetics, researchers think nurture has an essential influence on nature. Similarly in other fields, the dividing line between an inherited and an acquired trait becomes unclear, as in epigenetics or fetal development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

(Oct 20, 2016 02:49 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 19, 2016 07:07 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

No. Ethics deals with moral principles, some of which can be very subjective.

Yes, ethics involves evaluating the merit of moral principles, to determine which ones are subjective opinion and which ones are objective reasoning. You seem to be ignorant of the difference between the layman and philosophical definitions of "ethics".

"Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.

The word "ethics" in English refers to several things. It can refer to philosophical ethics or moral philosophy—a project that attempts to use reason in order to answer various kinds of ethical questions." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Defining_ethics

Quote:

Syne Wrote:When you're discussing morality, you're in the field of normative ethics. There are, broadly, only three major theories...virtue, deontological, and consequential. And many would even say that virtue ethics is subsumed in deonotlogical and consequential ethics.

Your little wiki link is composed of things merely tagged as ethics, but most are principles, behavior, or motivational theory.

They're moral theories. There are actual cases where applied ethics appeals to normative ethics.

"Normative ethics studies what features make an action right or wrong.  Applied ethics attempts to figure out, in actual cases, whether or not certain acts have those features."

Applied ethics is normative ethics applied to specific fields, where ethics must be evaluated in terms of duties and rules of that field. As such, applied ethics adds nothing to the two (or three) basic theories of normative ethics.

Quote:This started with your demands for objective views rather than subjective.

I'm curious, though. Which moral theory did you use to determine that homosexuality was wrong?


Do you think that eating meat is ethically defensible?

Objective views are the only ones that can be defended or argued with anything other than fallacies. Start a new thread of you really want to discuss homosexuality. Here it's a red herring. And yes, being omnivorous is ethical.

I disagree with almost everything that you said, Syne.  Objective views?...as in the philosophical distinction of an object or something that exists or has properties independent of our perception or opinion?  And subjective?...meaning that it depends on a subject for its existence or properties…hmm…such as value judgements?

You started off with an ethical dilemma concerning BIID.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument against amputation was that it hindered their ability to exercise their most basic capabilities.  Leigha has shown that the same can be said of factory farms.  You said that anthropomorphism played a role in her perspective.  We know that animals feel pain, but do you believe that animals experience emotions or have a sense of self?

On one hand, you seem to be saying that emotions rob us of our capacity to reason, that they are primal animal energies that we should suppress, but then you go on to say that the lack of emotions in animals excuses omnivorism.

You seek to remove biases, yet you defend speciesism. Not only do you make room for nonhuman biases, you also allow for human in-group favoritism.

I believe that ethics are not understood by a detached intellect.  Emotions are essential to moral philosophy and any ethical system requires a substantial understanding of them.  

One day, in the same way that the dichotomy of nature versus nurture outlived its usefulness, the same will be said of the dichotomy of emotions versus reason.  Logos and pathos are intertwined. Emotion and reason are codependent.

(Oct 20, 2016 04:03 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with almost everything that you said, Syne.  Objective views?...as in the philosophical distinction of an object or something that exists or has properties independent of our perception or opinion?  And subjective?...meaning that it depends on a subject for its existence or properties…hmm…such as value judgements?

While morals are subjective because they are derived from dubious value judgments, ethics seeks to determine which value judgements are good simpliciter (universally good) and which are good for (good from a particular perspective). This is the only way to compare competing subjective moralities.

Quote:You started off with an ethical dilemma concerning BIID.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument against amputation was that it hindered their ability to exercise their most basic capabilities.  Leigha has shown that the same can be said of factory farms.  You said that anthropomorphism played a role in her perspective.  We know that animals feel pain, but do you believe that animals experience emotions or have a sense of self?

On one hand, you seem to be saying that emotions rob us of our capacity to reason, that they are primal animal energies that we should suppress, but then you go on to say that the lack of emotions in animals excuses omnivorism.

My argument against enabling BIID was that we should protect people from future regret for their mentally compromised choices. We have no evidence that such animals have a sense of self, nor that they are capable of regret or even contemplation of the past or future. And sense of self is a cognitive, not emotional, capacity.

Quote:You seek to remove biases, yet you defend speciesism. Not only do you make room for nonhuman biases, you also allow for human in-group favoritism.

You cannot rationally evaluate the values and rights of different species without admitting the empirical differences between species. And no social species survives without some degree of in-group preference. These are just facts, which are irrational to ignore.

Quote:I believe that ethics are not understood by a detached intellect.  Emotions are essential to moral philosophy and any ethical system requires a substantial understanding of them.  

One day, in the same way that the dichotomy of nature versus nurture outlived its usefulness, the same will be said of the dichotomy of emotions versus reason.  Logos and pathos are intertwined. Emotion and reason are codependent.

Again, you conflate ethics with morals. Good luck with your continued wishful thinking on the primacy/parity of emotion.

The question about homosexuality wasn’t meant to be a red herring.  I want to know how you think.  Tell me how you came to those conclusions.  Give me an example of a good simpliciter for homosexuality and omnivorism.  

"Claims about good simpliciter are those which have garnered the most attention in moral philosophy. This is partly because as it is usually understood, these are the "good" claims that consequentialists hold to have a bearing on what we ought to do."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/