tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5322561821009722334..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The meaning of subjectivismLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82094636736501721842011-07-28T07:47:11.149-06:002011-07-28T07:47:11.149-06:00@Barefoot Bum
"...I have to go with the simp...@Barefoot Bum<br /><br />"...I have to go with the simpler theory that when we make ethical statements, regardless of category errors we might make in our interpretation, we cannot be talking sensibly about anything other than our own preferences."<br /><br />Since all the evidence seems to show that people (generally) are _attempting_ to talk about some objective moral reality, but (as you say) they cannot sensibly (I would say cannot correctly) be doing so, I think the best explanation is that they are attempting to do the impossible. In other words, as moral error theorists say, there is a fundamental error involved in moral claims, which renders it impossible for such claims to be true.<br /><br />@Celtic Chimp<br /><br />It's quite possible that many people have misinterpreted Harris. I've only read his online articles, not his book. But on the basis of those his position seems poorly explained, if not quite muddled.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-30732714959454102792011-07-24T10:17:16.332-06:002011-07-24T10:17:16.332-06:00Many people, religious and non-religious alike pan...Many people, religious and non-religious alike panic a little bit when they consider the idea that morality boils done to little more than our innate preferences.<br /><br />"Without God all things are permitted" etc. or Sam Harris' recent book where he tries to paint our subjective morality with a kind of half-hearted objectivity. I think Harris does have some good and serious points to make but his fear of a relativistic moral anarchy shows. In fairness to Harris there is a lot of straw-manning of his position. Harris ultimately is a moral subjectivist (if I am reading him correctly) he is trying to point out that many of our moral preferences are based on objective facts about what we are. That these facts can be used as a guide to moral oughts. <br /><br />There is a lot of agreement between people about what is right and wrong and this fact is often used to argue for objective morality. Statements of the kind "Everyone knows it is wrong to X" or "Who seriously argues that X is moral" That vastly different moral opinions exist on many other topics doesn't seem to phase these folk at all though. We, being social mammals of the same species, are almost guaranteed to have similar moral preferences. <br /><br />I also think there is a lot of confusion between the ideas of moral subjectivity and the very different notion of cultural moral relativism.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.com