Metaethics - The Moral Domain

[@Catofminerva]

24:30 The question isnt ‘can I murder?’, thats a boring principle that is accepted cross culturally. The question is more like ‘who or what can i murder and when can i murder it?’, those disgusting members of the nearby tribe? Apostates? Homosexuals? The idea is that ingroups create conditional obligations that go by the name norms. Because ingroups are constitutively exclusionary, the question ‘who can I murder?’ Is prompted.

[@animore8626]

Hey Kane, are you still planning on making a video on Humean Constructivism?

[@squatch545]

Great video. I think you managed to hit on all the major meta-ethical theories about the moral / conventional distinction. I suppose you could have also included Turiel's work on this, but it would have made for a much longer video. Personally, my number one philosophical interest is this very topic. I've been obsessed with the question of what makes something 'moral' for almost 20 years. After reading and thinking about this for so long, I've lately almost given up on trying to work out a principled way to make the distinction. There are just too many exceptions to try and demarcate and categorize what makes something moral. It's too slippery of a concept. So now I tend to lean towards Stephen Stich's contention that there is simply no such thing as a the moral domain, and that any activity can be moralized for any reason.

[@KaneB]

I did initially talk about Turiel in the script, but as I understand it, Turiel's work simply assumes a view on the moral domain -- namely, that moral judgments are those that are taken to be universalizable, authority-independent, and are justified by appeal to harm or rights. He wasn't so interested in question of justifying this way of drawing the distinction. So even if Turiel has identified a special kind of response pattern, it's not obvious why we should take this to be necessary or sufficient for moral judgment, in the absence of a prior account of what distinguishes moral from non-moral judgment. Stephen Stich has suggested that one option would be to take Turiel's response pattern as a natural kind that is picked out by our moral terms, given a causal role semantics for moral terms. But then Stich also gives what I think are pretty convincing arguments against this. As you say, all of this would have made for a much logner video. However, I hope to revisit this topic in the future, and explore some of this psychological research in a bit more detail.

[@josebolivar4364]

Very thoughtful!

[@HudBug]

Many people assume, when we use the word ‘wrong’, we all mean the same thing. This is false, clearly. At least to a billion people, says parfit, “the word ‘wrong’ means ‘forbidden by god or God’”. Some use the word ‘wrong’ to probably mean that ‘it would be disgusting’, ‘it is rude, unkind, or disrespectful’, or ‘from my point of view, that is not preferable’. When i use the word ‘wrong’, i mean wrong in the decisive-reason-implying sense. If an act is wrong, we have decisive reasons to not act in that way. This debate is very superfluous and silly. If someone someone asks “is X wrong?”, I’ll ask, “in what sense do you mean?”

[@squatch545]

Yup, good point.

[@ionwilliams9980]

A immoral action places a undue obligation on others or affects their time going forward negatively.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Interesting video.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Hygiene to Manners to Ethics to Morals

[@InventiveHarvest]

I expect that having sex with dead chickens could lead to spread of diseases; especially in early societies.

[@KaneB]

Yeah, one concern about some of these stories is that they may be prompting harm-based judgments, even if it's stipulated in the story that no harm occurs. It's maybe analogous to the fear I feel when turbulence occurs on an airplane -- rationally, I know I'm perfectly safe, but my "gut reaction" still seems to involve some sort of assessment that I'm at significant risk of death. Similarly, the disgust reaction to the chicken case might be driven by a subconscious judgment that this behaviour is associated with disease and illness.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@KaneB You had to make me Google it, didn't you. Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli infections can be serious, particularly for those who are very young, elderly or with compromised immune systems.

[@dominiks5068]

the form view just seems obviously correct to me - certainly it's not *inconceivable* that there could be a society where putting your elbows on the table while eating is seen as immoral, actually I wouldn't even be surprised if such a society exists in the actual world

[@orangereplyer]

But could they be mistaken about seeing it as a moral norm? E.g. they could judge it to be morally wrong because they think that it causes harm, or something.

[@oOneszaOo]

the problem with the form view is that it doesn't justify why a society would consider x norm a moral norm. the criteria of the form view are arbitrary in that it is not clear what makes them morally relevant criteria to begin with. thus, the form view only makes sense in combination with the content view. after all, do societies just roll a dice to decide whether elbows on the table is a moral norm or not? clearly, the decision depends on how understanding of the world relates to definitions of harm/care/etc. the fact that both the understanding and the definitions can be different means that you can get such justifications as: elbows on the table are morally wrong because there is a god in heaven and he cares about physical gestures likes this due to their association with specific attitudes, so if you put your elbows on the table you are harming your family (e.g. by harming their prospects of going to heaven because god assumes they failed to teach you respect).

[@jacklessa9729]

What people WANT TO BE WRONG and the utility of social rules to social stability are different things. And also many societies have rules they believe would create social stability, but they actually will do the opposite, because they were bild upon lies and not facts. Many people want to do what would create social Disistabily. Psicopaths will say kill someone for pleasure is not wrong, but we cannot accept that, that would destroy society. Kill for pleasure is wrong because moral rules need to be impartial, or people will not follow a rule that many others don't follow, so if we accept one can do that, so all can do that. Cheating is another example. Many people say cheating is wrong, but they cheat. What they really want is they don't end up cheated, but they wanna cheat, but that's not gonna happen, because people will not follow a rule that nobody is following, have no cost/benefit. So "cheating is wrong" became empty, many people now are crying that monogamy is over or do not exist, but they refuse to pay the price to have monogamy and want monogamy. Cry a river. So there's is no challenge here.

[@TheGlenn8]

Video on the experience machine? Only commenting for algorithm boosts.

[@KaneB]

Already done! kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4LKloicedR0o6M (and thanks for the boost)

[@ionwilliams9980]

If you see a child drowning in a pond you don’t have any obligation. How did the child get there? Did it’s parents not teach it not to go into deep water? The child’s parents have a obligation to educate and look after the child so that it doesn’t end up in that situation. You cannot have obligations imposed on you. You assume them due to or as direct result of your actions. If you have children it’s up to you, or you are obligated, to ensure that that child doesn’t place undue obligations on others. Teach your children to or it to swim. If your culture doesn’t do that it should either start or discipline children that go near water or deal with the fact that it may drown, why do others need to be obligated to perform because you don’t feel obligated to take responsibility for your actions. That action would be to have a child. If I other parties do help that would be as a result of their culture or upbringing and compassion for others. The parents of the child should be taken to task unless not looking after your children, and not preparing them life is a trait of the culture of the parents of the child. But if that’s the case why should it be a responsibility imposed on me without my consent?

[@ionwilliams9980]

@@Thurgodification there is a difference between choosing and being obligated. You are obligated to make sure your actions, having a child, don’t place undue obligations on others . A person can choose to help if one wants. That is determined by one’s culture and upbringing, it usually determines how much respect others have for you. I cannot spit out children and throw them in water and expect other to save those that can’t float or swim. It’s my responsibility to ensure they can swim if they tend to end up in deep water.

[@oOneszaOo]

i've always said the same thing and got looked at like i was evil by fellow philosophy students. 🤣 love that i finally found somebody who agrees.

[@oOneszaOo]

@@Thurgodification you're conflating the idea of moral obligation with the idea of being a kind of person deserving of moral praise. the former specifies what's morally impermissible (setting the standard for potential punishment), while the latter specifies what's morally desirable (setting the standard for praise). if i save the child despite not having a moral obligation to do so, that makes me a "good" person. but i have no obligation to be a good person, i only have an obligation not to be a bad one. to say somebody has a moral obligation to save the child is to say some sort of moral failure occurred. i would be unwilling to grant that i failed morally just because i'm not deserving of moral praise, nor would i grant that i failed morally because somebody else says i am obligated to make up for the moral failures of others (in this case the caretakers that had the obligation to make sure the child doesn't drown). we wouldn't say somebody has a moral obligation to also take on the moral obligations of others. if you don't do your job, how does your job become my responsibility?! the answer is it doesn't. a child is a responsibility somebody takes on, and whether i save somebody else's child because i view children as intrinsically valuable is up to me to decide, not an obligation society should be able to impose on me. that doesn't mean i would claim to be a better person for not saving the child than somebody who would.