@video_game_king: But neither statement has even the pretense of any logical basis. So what is the difference? And what does "morally right" mean (since it has no relation to logic)?
Icemael's forum posts
@video_game_king: Here's a question for you: what is the difference between saying "If you come across a poor man is it right to give to him, and wrong not to" and saying "If you eat yoghurt it is right to judge it to be delicious, and wrong not to"?
It makes perfect sense, but just forget about it -- it was an aside and has no real bearing on the morality discussion.
If I say "It is a universal truth that yoghurt is delicious", I am saying "anyone who claims yoghurt isn't delicious is wrong", which means I am saying "you should find yoghurt delicious" (since if you do not, you are wrong).
Here is what I am saying: I cannot, working only from the definition of yoghurt, create a logical proof that yoghurt is delicious. If I claim it to be an absolute truth that yoghurt is delicious, since there is no necessary connection between that claim and the definition of yoghurt, the claim can be refuted while the definition of the word "yoghurt" remains exactly the same. Whereas with a triangle and Pythagoras' theorem, the theorem can never be refuted unless the definition of "triangle" changes.
For fuck's sake dude, if I say that it is an absolute truth that yoghurt is delicious, then I am saying that if you eat yoghurt, your evaluation of its taste (and evaluating something IS AN ACTION) should be positive. I am telling you that if a scenario arises where you have yoghurt in your mouth, you should act a certain way. What is hard to understand?
A moral evaluation is precisely an evaluation that claims to be accurate outside of the purely personal, subjective sphere. The kind of system you speak of (i.e. one that doesn't make any such claim) wouldn't even work on the most basic level. It would be self-contradictory and absolutely nonsensical: "I should do this, but at the same time you may be right to say that I should not do this". Either one of them is right and the other is wrong (i.e. there is an absolute "should" or "shouldn't", as in morality), or neither is right (as in amorality). You can't have an in-between.
No, since moral judgments are value judgments, and that is a mathematical proposition, not a judgment of value. Furthermore, the traits given in the definition of "triangle" make it a logical necessity that the sides relate to each other in that way, whereas there is nothing in the definition of "yoghurt" that makes it a logical necessity that it tastes good or bad.
But it is: it is telling you what your evaluation of yoghurt should be. If we accept it as true, you are wrong if you eat yoghurt and dislike the taste.
It absolutely does: that's what separates it from aesthetics. "Killing is bad" (universal, consequently moral) vs. "I don't like killing" (subjective, consequently aesthetic).
Morality is evaluative, but not all evaluations are moral.
@video_game_king: No, you are confusing aesthetic judgments with moral ones, and have been all along. Here's an aesthetic value judgment: "I find yoghurt delicious". Here is a moral value judgment: "It is a universal truth that yoghurt is delicious". If you can't separate them there's no point in talking to you.
Also check out this sick hero:
@video_game_king: No. Not claiming that someone shouldn't do what they're doing is not the same as saying they should do it. There is no absolute "should" or "shouldn't" -- that's the point.
@video_game_king: They're not the same, because only the first claims it to be the absolute truth that the presence of the immigrants is a good thing.
Here's an example you might understand: if a caveman is hunting a deer in the forest, he doesn't have to claim that it is wrong for the deer to want to escape and survive in order to justify thwarting its attempt to do so. Similarly, the deer doesn't have to claim that it is wrong of the caveman to hunt for food in order to justify trying to escape.
@groverat: What do you mean, "what if"? If you think the immigrants are a bad thing and would enjoy seeing them burned alive, then that's what you would be in favour of.
Personal value judgments are "acceptable" because they're only real, honest value judgments we can make.
How are you arguing that the Prime Minister shouldn't do these horrible things to people? "We should have more immigrants here" is a moral statement, for it is telling somebody how the world should be, which is at the heart of what morality is. If we remove our ability to look at anything through a moral lens, then we remove our ability to tell others how the world ought to be, and, therefore, our ability to act upon those thoughts.
It is a moral statement if you say "We should have more immigrants here, that is what is right and good and that's the end of that". It's not a moral statement if you say "I like having the immigrants here, and here are reasons why you might want it, too" or "I like having the immigrants here and I will fight you to keep it that way".