99Percent

I have no problems with subjectivist, just so long as they don't force their opinions unto others.

Unfortunately, since for subjectivist there is no objective standard, the only way for them to "persuade" is through force or threat of force.

Divide et Impera

Unfortunately, since for subjectivist there is no objective standard, the only way for them to "persuade" is through force or threat of force.

Is that a fact?

I feel like I am in the twilight zone -- has someone given life to a scarecrow?

What are these objective standards (please do not leave any out and leave me uneducated)?

Law persuades through force or threat of force, how is what you have any better?

Baloo

WTF? Actually, I thought subjectivists generally banded together with those who share the same (subjective) standards, and persuaded others to live by said standards by threatening: loss of finances (fines, tickets), loss of freedoms (imprisonment, probation), loss of face (public humiliation, disbarment, scarlett letters, etc.), and in rare occasions, threats of force (up to and including capital punishment). This seems to directly contrast what you just said.

What society are you from where I would have to track down everyone who was in violation of my subjective standards and threaten to punch them in the face unless they stopped?

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Baloo

Upon further reflection, I realized I was making the case too specific still: subjectivists have only one way to get others to adhere to their standards, and that is to convince others that it is in their best interest to adhere to said standards. This leaves many, many options outside of "force", some of which I've mentioned. My earlier post addressed one category: establish negative consequences (punishments) for disobeying subjective standards (use of force qualifies for this category). The other side of the coin, of course, is to establish rewards for obeying subjective standards. Furthermore, it is not always necessary to promise reward or threaten punishment to change an agent's mind about following a subjective standard. A third category boils down to the fact that, quite often, it is sufficient to demonstrate it is in an agent's best interest to live by your subjective standard regardless of your own rewards/punishments.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Divide et Impera

I don't know what has become of this thread, perhaps I asked too many questions...

Please allow me to redirect this thread with 2 questions:

1) Is emotion a valid moral indicator?

2) Without emotion, how does one escape nihilism? (give me an emotional response, and you get a big fat "F" for Failure.)

Looking forward to your replies.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

99Percent

No, emotions need to be understood.

Through happiness, and I do not mean happiness as an emotion (that might be pleasure) but as a state of well-being. One could be having great pleasure yet be terribly unhappy.

Marz Blak

I think that one of the strongest appeals of objectivist moral theory to many people is in its easy avoidance of nihilism. Though "objective" moral theories are presented as appeals to reason, I feel that the entire approach is really rather an appeal to emotion. That is, to many people, nihilism is emotionally unpalatable, plain and simple.

Having said that, my answers to your questions:

1) Is emotion a valid moral indicator?
As I do not believe the so-called 'objective' approach to ethics is valid, I would of course say certainly not in any objective sense. I would say, though, that values are inherently subjective (it is part and parcel of my whole approach to this area of thinking) and, that being the case, emotion is 'valid' in the sense that it is something we all use and agree to use, by consensus.

2) Without emotion, how does one escape nihilism?
There is no escape from nihilism without emotion in my view. Ethics are based on values, which are inherently subjective, and which are informed by emotion (necessarily I would say). So in my view, if you remove emotion as a tool or basis for the formation of values, all you are left with is nihilism. Does that make sense?

To 99percent: what is the distinction between *happiness* as an emotional state and as a "state of well-being?" I am not sure I understand your point.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

Divide et Impera

Through happiness, and I do not mean happiness as an emotion (that might be pleasure) but as a state of well-being. One could be having great pleasure yet be terribly unhappy.

I'm very sorry, but given the criteria that I have outlined your answer SCREAMS: "F".

d'naturalist

Sorry, I misspoke with comment #1. I'm fairly familiar with physical objectivism, but not so familiar with ethical objectivism. After referring to my copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (a wonderful book), let me try again.

As before, physical objectivism is based on the idea that physical objects exist independent of our awareness of them. Ethical objectivism (if my reading comprehension skills are still up to snuff) is the idea that ethical standards can exist based solely on reason, independent of personal opinion or emotion.

For example, murder is considered by most to be unethical. But why? A subjectivist answer would be that murder is wrong because people are afraid of dying. An objectivist answer would be that a) one of the prime directives of life is survival, b) living in a social group increases the chances of survival, but c) allowing murder would decrease the chances of survival (more potential murderers in a group). Ergo, murder = bad idea.

To answer your new questions:
1. No, emotion isn't a good moral indicator. To many sadistic power-trippers in this world who enjoy hurting or dominating others.

2. Escaping nihilism without emotions? My first impulse is to appeal to pragmatism. What's the most practical solution to an ethical dilemma. What effectively and most efficiently balances the needs of the group with the needs of the individual.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: d'naturalist ]</p>

99Percent

I am going to draw an analogy of happiness with health being pain and pleasure possible indicators of health. You can be suffering pain yet you know you are doing something good to your health, say by doing exercise. Likewise you could be feeling a lot of pleasure yet you know your are hurting your health.

Happiness is like health - there can be never too much of it. Its a feeling of well-being, not an emotion perse. A feeling of accomplishment as a rational human being. Its a conscious joy.