philechat

It's not appealing to tradition. Subjective morality does not entail cultural relativism, and I would say there's no reason cultural relativism must be true, due to the change of conditions that surround the cultural traditions. That is, the environmental changes warrant us to not adhere to our cultural tradition, which is certainly derived from a condition of environment different from our time. The problem with all the atrocities you mentioned above indeed are from people too convinced of their truths (in that they believe their truth to be absolute, objective). The idea of morality, however, is derived from one's experience shaded by one's emotional disposition--that is, we usually see "wrong" because our emotional reactions about the event is unpleasant.

Nope. I see the reason to "poke hole" in others' assumptions not because I am convinced about the objectivity of certain values of mine, but because I "want" my own values to be recognized by others who perhaps have not entertained them in their own experience. I see it as "giving other people another option to choose from" instead of "telling others that my version is better than theirs".

Lobstrosity

How would you possibly "poke holes" in someone else's morals if they're based solely on that person's emotional reactions? Nothing you can say would have any affect. You couldn't possibly have any influence at all.

philechat

Because I presented them "a new experience". Their emotions would take account of the new experience and become affected by my argument. I do not discount the influence of experience in one's derivation of morality, just for your information.

Guillaume

Indeed. But a question must be answered : why should we obey our emotion reactions ?

Generally, following emotions is viewed as bad and is considered a bestial way to live.

Those who are ashamed of sex and obey their guilt are considered morons.
Racists, who obey their hatred, are scorned by all.
Criminals, who obey their greed, are viewed by contempt by society.
Rapists, who obey their desire of domination, are probably the most hated group.
Philosophers of all kind continually argue that passions need to be suppressed in favor of logic.

Yet when we talk of subjective morality, it seems like everyone happily embrace their lowest instinct and emotions. Go figure.

philechat

I have not said we must obey our emotional reactions, only that we derive values in accordance to our emotional disposition and experience. My statement is descriptive not perscriptive, and I hope people do not misunderstand my ideas of morality.

"Subjective morality" does not dictate us to follow our feelings to our bitter ends. That would be an "objective truth" I would hesitate to speak about.

dk

Originally posted by philechat
I would argue against any objective morality arrived through reason alone. The basis of morality has always been plain-ol' feeling, and people trying to rationalize feelings into some universal laws.
dk: Emotions/Feelings interpret experience with a response, while reason directs effort with purpose. If I like/dislike someone and they smile at me, then my emotions respond with warmth/suspicion. Morality governs conduct with reason so people might understand one another. When people loose control they abandon reason to act with abandon upon emotions/feelings.
Originally posted by philechat
It does seem reasonable to poke some holes in people's moral assumptions from time to time. Usually morality exists for utility's sake, or for the instinct of self-preservation in our nature. And I do see morality as values which could not depart from our own character and emotional disposition.
dk: Morality exists for many reasons, but primarily to 1) protect people from unintended harm, 2) teach people to act rationally, and 3) teach people to understand one another. Since morality directs people to act reasonably, to me, your response is irrational.

Totalitarianist

No. It must be deduced before it can be rationally believed. As far as I know, human rights do not have reality. I have no "respect" for that which has not any reality. How can one?

I do not kill at will because I do not want to feel pain. I do not kill at will because I do not desire to do so; not because I believe it is "wrong". I only lack a desire.

Your response is exactly what I predicted. Using such terms as "purpose", "must", "needs" in a moral sense to prove the necessity of morality.

No, it is not real. It has dependent being. When you dream, and you dream of a chair, the chair whereof you dreamt is not real. The dream-chair exists, but it is not real. It is exactly the same with morality. it is phenomenon. That is it.

Totalitarianist

I never used the word "should" or "should not"! Hahah! I said it is not rational. I never once said "should".

Totalitarianist

I never said there is anything wrong with it. I merely said that it is the case that it is bigotry. I am being objective. it is bigotry. Stating a fact. I am not saying that it is wrong. I just assume that people here generally dislike bigotry. But that is not the point at all. It is bigotry. Belief is irrational. That is the case.

Dominus Paradoxum

Nonsense. If you really don't give a damn about morality, then why should it make any difference to you whether others dislike bigotry? Surely, you didn't start this thread to record the statistics on how many people dislike bigotry, did you? And if not, then what was the point of your exercise? Do you seriously expect me to believe that, while you're callous enough to be indifferent to human suffering ( cf. "I get a good laugh out of "humanitarianism"."), you still manage to care about what other people think? Pathetic! That's yor dirtly little secret, isn't it, totalitarian? You see, egoists such as yourself tell themselves that they don't have any regard for others, but in truth, they're wholly dependent on them for their psychological well being. If they suddenly stopped getting input from anyone else, they'd go insane. And that's why you started this thread. You did it because you were just dying to know how people would respond. And that alone is is enough to show that the opinions of others matter to you more than your rhetoric would suggest. Your egoist "conscience" tells you that others' opinions shouldn't matter, but you find yourself still caring despite yourself.