Oh, Well:
Blow gun and pet Poison dart frog.
Silent, deadly, and the frog makes an excellent pet.
I am pretty comfortable with the idea that people can talk about things that may appear somewhere in the law in ways that aren’t making factually legal claims. Since social preferences often end up enshrined in law thanks to our handy system of government, it’s not the craziest kind of conversation to have.
Interesting philosophy. Not exactly meta-ethical, or normative moral relativism - sort of a new flavor. It could be called Sociopathic moral relativism. “Whatever act we do is moral, whatever act they do is not.” Even if the act is identical. The ultimate subset of “we” would, in fact, be “I”.
It’s the ultimate justification for doing whatever the fuck you want, while simultaneously being able to decry that behaviour in others.
I actually don’t even care whether there is “objective reality” to individual preference or not. They have reality simply because people believe them and make decisions based on them. I’m interested in the linguistic and analytical issues raised by emotivism, and if Hume had written Harry Potter slash I’d probably read it and like it. But personally and professionally, I am far more interested in how individual preferences actually get aggregated into social preference.
Edited to add that emotivism is absolutely meta-ethical. Though perhaps I am being a little charitable when I assume that Rand has read Stevenson, etc and cares about ideas and is not just finding superficial philosophical justifications for behavior that most people find distasteful.
I actually think this is fairly accurate (except that emotivism absolutely is meta-ethical). Nice job, EP.
Yes, actually. Rand Rover may have some unpleasant political views, but he usually at least has the balls and decency to call them for what they are and stand by them, knowing he’ll get flak. So when he comes out with a pro-torture stance, I actually expect him to acknowledge it as a pro-torture stance and then justify it from there. Him clinging to the weasely “enhanced interrogation” bullshit is actually somewhat out of character for him, hence me saying I expect more from him. I often disagree with him, but I acknowledge that he usually has the balls to at least come out and clearly identify his controversial positions.
Yes but around here we have a simple phrase for that. It’s “thinking your shit don’t stink”.
Also it robs Rand Rover of all moral right to complain about things. Legal right too. I mean why do"they" need free speech? We can tax him all we want. I mean he’s one of “them” so it’s okay!
I say we tax him at 110% until his assets run out. Then send him to split rocks.
Ooooh, “moral right,” that sounds like it means something or something. Too bad it doesn’t.
I can point that that taxing me at 110% is a bad idea for our society. Nothing I’ve said contradicts that. I just don’t think that my preference for not being taxed at 110% or my feeling that it’s bad for society to do so qualifies as some objective truth.
Not society, just you, and possibly Paris Hilton.
Since under your system morals are so personalized, nothing to protect you from the tyranny of majority. You will be our bitch.
I remember when you couldn’t carry five dollars worth of corned beef!!!
No, that is exactly why we have morals, to the extent that anyone can explain why they have morals. Morals are biologically derived, though obviously parsed through a social filter. And morals are sets of behaviors designed to make societies runs smoothly. Societies run more smoothly when people aren’t killing each other all the time. They also foster mutual protection between people, meaning that any individual protects himself by acting morally even if the mechanism for it is not obvious.
Eleven soldiers got convicted of torture and prisoner abuse in Abu Grebe. That makes it torture in a moral and a legal sense. They were convicted. That is no longer abstract.
I agree with everything you said if you understand that “morals” in the post above just means “an individual’s preferences for their own and others’ behavior.”
So RR doesn’t believe in consensus morality? That’s unsurprising.
What is “consensus morality”?
Wouldn’t that be akin to agreements like the Geneva Convention that cross national borders and cultures whereby all parties agree not to do certain shit to each other because its universally agreed upon to be immoral?
I don’t think its very nice of you guys to throw around these fancy, five dollar words like “consensus” just to confuse poor ol’ Randy.
Yep, you got me, that’s the word that tripped me up . . .
The problem is that people like to use the word “moral” or “morality” in conjunction with all kinds of other words and pretend that the pair means one thing and one thing only that everyone should agree on (lest they be called something bad, like a sociopath etc.). For example: moral obligation, moral right, moral responsibility, morally responsible, etc. and etc. ad nauseum.
I don’t know. What you described sounds like an “agreement” to me. I don’t know what the word “consensus morality” has to do with anything. I guess it could mean “the rules people have decided to obey pursuant to an agreement,” but MrDibble could mean something else.
Well of course its an agreement…and so are the creation of laws for that matter (a consensus!). But the framework of an agreement like the Geneva Convention exists due to morality. Things like agreeing to treat POW’s in a humanitarian (moral) way. Not using larger than “x” sized caliber rounds against personnel because it cuts a man in half (moral)…etcetera.
Don’t murder, its against the law (immoral). They aren’t mutually exclusive, law and morality, they often beget one another.