This is about the Ferguson events - I was a bit surprised by the claims in that thread that a statement like “I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police” is not a moral judgment. So - a poll to measure the sentiment on this. Note: I made the poll public, don’t see any reason not to.
I checked Other. I’ll freely cop to maybe being overly pedantic, or just wrong, but the proposition as stated sounds like a personal preference without necessarily being a moral judgement. A moral judgement might be more on the lines of “I could never respect a person who looted and burned stores in anger at police”.
It seems like it’s an implied moral judgement, at least. The implied statement is “I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police because looting and burning stores is wrong.” Obviously, that’s just an implied motivation. Maybe you would never loot and burn stores in anger at police because you can never get those safety matches lit because whenever you try you always end up breaking off the heads Maybe you’re just too lazy. But if you said something like that to me, I’d assume you believed that it was immoral to do so.
I voted other. No reason is given. It might simply be a statement I won’t do this because I’m afraid I’ll be caught. A moral judgement is “I would consider it wrong to …”
El Kabong: I see your point, and agree with it in a sort of abstract fashion. But the statement, as I read it, is a kind of passive or “en passant” moral judgement. It kind of assumes the Golden Rule.
“As I would not do this to others, I would not admire it being done to me.”
On the other hand, purely literally, you’re right. “I would never smoke a cigarette.” But I don’t really care if you do. The statement isn’t a moral judgement, but just a statement of personal preferences.
All that said, I voted yes.
Well, obviously “I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police - because I’m too lazy” is not a moral judgment. But really, you need the qualifier in order to make it a non-moral-judgment.
This. It certainly COULD be an expression of morality; it could be an expression of a practical judgement (“…because my life would be ruined if I got caught, but if I could get away with it, you bet I would!”)
So: other.
No, in my view you need a qualifier to reach any conclusion.
Eh, well, I think you’d need the qualifier equally to make it a moral judgement, but it’s not something I’d fight to the death over. Carry on.
I disagree. There is a an implied moral weight attached to the statement that requires a qualifier to unbalance. Like when a woman says “No, I wouldn’t sleep with every man I meet” - the qualifier of “because I don’t think they would sleep with me, I’m so unattractive” is not implied (or in any way obvious). But the moral judgment is.
I vote no, but I should have voted other.
It might a moral judgement. It might just be a statement of fact. It would depend on the context and tone of voice.
In any case, as can be seen both from my postsin that thread and on the opponent’s posts, the argument was not about qualifiers.
My moral judgment would never allow me to loot and burn stores.
For any reason.
What if Adolf Hitler is hiding inside? Or, y’know, the cure for cancer is in the back room, and if you don’t get it out, it will be lost? Or some other extremely strained and contrived ad hoc hypothetical that would never arise in the real world?
(“Would you rather share a sleeping bag with a 100-pound tarantula or chug-a-lug a Drano milkshake?” Tom Weller, The Book of Stupid Questions.)
See, I don’t think of that statement as a moral one, either. I wouldn’t sleep with every woman I met, either, but it’s not a moral judgment. I have no moral qualms with it; I’m just not interested. The statement in the OP leans towards having a moral judgment, but with no further context, I had to vote “other.”
It’s one of those “have you stopped beating your wife” statements. Whether or not I would ever burn or loot stores has nothing to do with whether or not I was angry with the police. In fact, if I burned and looted stores (a reflection of my moral posture), it would be because I was pleased that the cooperative police were distracted and preoccupied, opening an opportunistic window to burn and loot stores for reasons quite unrelated to how I felt about the police.
Did the Quaaludes just kick in? Par-tay on, dude.
What if you met your wife at an S/M club? If you stop beating her, she’ll leave you for someone who will. :eek:
Need more info before I could answer. Like motivation.
“I would never loot and burn stores in anger at police”