The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too.
This is the problem I have with many philosophers. In the whole text you cannot find a single strong logical evidence. Everything is just an opinion.
It is impossible to prove that e.g. "stealing from others" is universally "bad". It may not be a beneficial strategy in a game theory, or maybe some statistical analysis can show societies are better off with this rule, or just that people sleep better knowing that others can't steal. But neither of this is universally true for humanity in general, and there are examples in game theory were cheating actually is a winning strategy.
Yes I am guilty of moral relativism, that I am not alone in that is interesting, so the article is one I find interesting. But it is flawed, your example is apt and that's not the only one:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
The blank stare on his face said it all.
...
I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted.
With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.
The point of the article is not to prove that values are objective. Rather, the point is to undermine the fact/opinion distinction.
If moral sentiments were mere opinion, then there'd be no point to arguing over whether some action is right or wrong. When you tell me that you really like the taste of sushi, I don't argue with you - I just accept that that's your taste. But that we don't simply accept as 'taste' other's moral sentiments suggests that our own understanding of what is at stake is different.
There is no point debating without first accepting the existence of absolute, universal and objective moral truth. You can't claim that someone "is wrong" (in the objective sense) if "being wrong" is not something that can exist. When a subjectivist "debates", it can only be motivated by selfishness - never by truth.
Self-awareness is the only thing that matters. The system only exists to understand itself, as accurately as possible. That's what we also call "truth", and that's the most important thing. Really.
Truth is about convergence, as there exists only one truth. When a person lies, it increases entropy (that's not good). While there exists only one truth, there can exist infinitely many lies. You can't disprove truth, but you can disprove lies, if only through contradictions. Whenever a person lies, progress (proximity to truth) slows down. That's the definition of evil. Therefore, lying is objectively/universally/absolutely a bad thing.
It is not important whether a lie today could lead to a better outcome in the future. We can't accurately predict the future. We don't even know "when" the future is. It is therefore, impossible to evaluate whether something is good or not based on future events, as it can never be known.
This is at this point that you must realize that what matters is not the end, but the means. The means justifies the end, not the other way around. Failing to understand that hurts the universe.
Aim for efficiency. Aim for truth. You will find that these two things are just one. Only then will you be one with the universe.
So universal human rights are not objectively good?
It's fairly easy to assert that some moral standards are objectively better.
Take slavery for example, society a practices it while society b does not. Which society gives a better environment for the whole of its people?
And the same thing can be extended to take your example, don't know why you've put in game theory into the mix, but in general people tend to live better lives where there is law and order rather than live a life under constant threat and having to be the biggest meanest SOB out there to feel safe.
Not to mention that when you live in a society in which your home and self can be raped and pillaged at any moment you tend to invest quite a bit of resources in protecting your own self.
While this can still be seen in society today e.g. Police forces, safes, guns etc. It's no where near the amount of resources that would be wasted if you would be living in the wild west.
While it might not be politically correct to think that you live in a society which is more moral and better than others, the truth is that if you live in the west you most likely live in one.
And and in fact he luxury of this life style is what allows you to live in that nice little bubble of political correctness.
I personally believe that moral equivalence (or relativism) leads to moral bankruptcy, and sadly too many people have gone under.
They promote the equivalence of the moral values of cultures with completely "different" moral values, values that sorry to say in many cases are objectively less "moral" than modern western values.
Cultures that if the roles would've been reversed would not only let them speak but would actively silence them.
And while i might agree that everything might be just an opinion as you would said, there just might be some opinions which are better than others.
I would like to live in a free and open society, a society that protects it's members and grants them as many rights as possible without hurting the rights of others and without devolving into anarchy.
I rather live in a society that does not practice slavery, where women are equals, and no one gives a fuck what is on your plate or who is in your bedroom.
And while you might think that a society that stones women for adultery and hangs homosexuals on construction cranes at the local square is just as moral correct as the one mentioned i would disagree.
And if you want to quantify that, just quantify the well being of its members, including the ones that would be stoned, hanged, or locked in prison for life for being of or attracted to the wrong sex or simply by promoting other ideas.
And yes there is a good reason why I've not continued to rebuttal on that "stealing from others" example you've given, because It's too simplistic and irrelevant. A society can be morally bankrupt and still practice law and order. And I'm pretty sure that you would not want to live in a society which either allows crime to be committed without consequences nor practices cruel and unusual punishment in some eye for an eye biblical fashion. Because as much as i would think that the guy who broke into my flat and got away with my TV deserves to pay for his crime (and get some help in the process) i don't think that a boy who stole a loaf of bread from the market should get his hand chopped off because the law says so.
Oh and of course this is all my opinion, but i think given the chance we know exactly in which society people would chose to live in.
The ignorance is much easier to process upon learning that the author works at an episcopal church and is on the committee of two "Societies of Christian Philosophers".
Not a single argument against moral relativism was put forth in this article. But they mentioned that there actually are moral facts ad nauseum without a reason.
"Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t."
Yes, yes, they are! Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists! I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!
> I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!
What about the teaching discussed in the article about there being no moral facts? Should kids accept this proposition just because the education system repeats it over and over again? The teaching itself is a statement with moral implications. Where is the proof for the statement itself?
> Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists!
This viewpoint also contains a truth claim. Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first principles.
Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already have in your head, hold them as the truth, and wantonly criticize anyone or any system that slights those beliefs.
Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s
Turns out that living in a pluralistic, modern society makes it really hard to reason about moral truths when claimed moral facts are so tightly coupled to cultural baggage. I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.
> I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.
I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus. That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color or sports team.
We then had this conversation:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
What I meant was, his son's blank stare is exactly my reaction as a 30 year old adult --- I can't comprehend how this guy doesn't comprehend how stupid his questions are.
Moral 'facts' require a universal standard of morality. It's hard to come up with a truly universal standard. The best answer I've seen is: Man's life.
"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." -Ayn Rand [1]
The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts.
He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g.,
> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?
...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions!
He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this definition:
> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would constitute moral proof?
My guess is that the author is crypto-monotheist. With a God around, you could say that a moral claim is God's will, and even if we can't prove it there is a fact of the matter. In a godless world, there is no basis on which a moral claim could be a fact.
> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
That could be some positivist definition.
But in general a fact is something held or believed to be true, in that context it doesn't matter if it's self evident, deduced from other facts, known through experience, etc. Also that means some largely held facts can be just plain wrong.
The OP's mistake is to characterize all "moral facts" as simple binary answers. Cheating = bad. Killing = wrong. Those are too simple. That they are labeled opinion does not imply that there aren't any not-simple moral facts.
"Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in control of such."
I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact and most all would call it an accurate description of a state of affairs, a fact.
"All men are created equal" is not a fact, or even an opinion imho. It is a hope, a dream of people trying to describe an ideal state of affairs. That it isn't a "fact" doesn't mean that it cannot be something to believe in and strive for.
Your description of cheating presents facts, but there is nothing moral about them, except in that they are facts that explain why one group of people may prefer another group of people to accept something as a moral truth. (Which isn't what people generally mean when they asset the existence or nonexistence of "moral facts")
"All men are created equal", if we're talking about what Thomas Jefferson wrote, means all human beings are equally deserving of rights and possess equal worth. It does not refer to objective criteria like intelligence, beauty, strength, etc.
This is a popular far right talking point, fear or "moral relativism" and the ridiculous assertion that millions of kids are being indoctrinated into it by public schools. It's horse shit.
>Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake ...
Two decades ago, when I was in elementary school, we were taught pretty much the exact same thing. If someone states something is a fact, demand proof.
And for children, this is good enough. When they grow up to be pedantic associate professors of philisophy, they may feel free to expand on the above definitions.
Sure, it’s a mistake to treat facts and beliefs as disjoint. But moral relativism is the only honest position—we do not know what’s morally right, nor do we know whether right things even exist, nor can we necessarily prove these things even though we believe them. So we pragmatically follow evidence and try to treat people decently in an ad-hoc fashion.
More to the point, if a teacher teaches kids any specific absolute moral system, many of their parents will be upset with it. So the school system only allows teachers to teach what is essentially agnosticism—the absence of a moral position.
The examples from the article can all be dismissed by simple descriptivism:
> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?
A person can be outraged for any reason they want. It happens that this kind of thing outrages a lot of people.
> If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity?
We can, and do, do so arbitrarily. It happens that a lot of people agree on what “crimes against humanity” entail.
> If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?
Humans are occasionally altruistic for some reason.
Isn’t it more interesting to investigate the reasons for why so many humans believe these things than to endlessly conduct the same debates about truth, provability, and knowledge?
None of the examples come close to moral fact. (The author wasn't claiming they all were moral fact, but he suggests without being specific that at least some of them ought to be.)
— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
A situational ethic.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
A situational ethic.
— All men are created equal.
Objectively false.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
Too vague to be either fact or opinion.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
A situational ethic.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
"Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat."
I don't think this is an example of something that was ever "proved".
Nevertheless, I feel like the author's grasping for straws in his unwillingness to admit that morality is subjective and situational. He's done nothing to prove that moral values can or should be considered "facts" instead of (or in addition to, as he's advocating) opinions.
I think if you could show that certain morals were genetic and present in the majority, rather than learned, you'd have a basis for calling those moral facts for humans.
"It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on."
What if we say "cheating is not allowed". Can we blame them then?
[+] [-] ikken|11 years ago|reply
This is the problem I have with many philosophers. In the whole text you cannot find a single strong logical evidence. Everything is just an opinion.
It is impossible to prove that e.g. "stealing from others" is universally "bad". It may not be a beneficial strategy in a game theory, or maybe some statistical analysis can show societies are better off with this rule, or just that people sleep better knowing that others can't steal. But neither of this is universally true for humanity in general, and there are examples in game theory were cheating actually is a winning strategy.
[+] [-] throwawayaway|11 years ago|reply
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
The blank stare on his face said it all.
...
I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted.
With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.
[+] [-] jackson1372|11 years ago|reply
If moral sentiments were mere opinion, then there'd be no point to arguing over whether some action is right or wrong. When you tell me that you really like the taste of sushi, I don't argue with you - I just accept that that's your taste. But that we don't simply accept as 'taste' other's moral sentiments suggests that our own understanding of what is at stake is different.
[+] [-] miguelrochefort|11 years ago|reply
There is no point debating without first accepting the existence of absolute, universal and objective moral truth. You can't claim that someone "is wrong" (in the objective sense) if "being wrong" is not something that can exist. When a subjectivist "debates", it can only be motivated by selfishness - never by truth.
Self-awareness is the only thing that matters. The system only exists to understand itself, as accurately as possible. That's what we also call "truth", and that's the most important thing. Really.
Truth is about convergence, as there exists only one truth. When a person lies, it increases entropy (that's not good). While there exists only one truth, there can exist infinitely many lies. You can't disprove truth, but you can disprove lies, if only through contradictions. Whenever a person lies, progress (proximity to truth) slows down. That's the definition of evil. Therefore, lying is objectively/universally/absolutely a bad thing.
It is not important whether a lie today could lead to a better outcome in the future. We can't accurately predict the future. We don't even know "when" the future is. It is therefore, impossible to evaluate whether something is good or not based on future events, as it can never be known.
This is at this point that you must realize that what matters is not the end, but the means. The means justifies the end, not the other way around. Failing to understand that hurts the universe.
Aim for efficiency. Aim for truth. You will find that these two things are just one. Only then will you be one with the universe.
[+] [-] humanrebar|11 years ago|reply
Including everything you just wrote. I'm not sure why you're so down on his claims when your position is circular at best.
Is everything relative so everyone has a valid opinion? Or is everything relative so that nobody has a valid opinion? Either way, why do you care?
[+] [-] brasky|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javert|11 years ago|reply
Stealing from others is bad if it decreases your pleasure and it is good if it increases your pleasure.
That is objective.
[+] [-] evincarofautumn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|11 years ago|reply
And the same thing can be extended to take your example, don't know why you've put in game theory into the mix, but in general people tend to live better lives where there is law and order rather than live a life under constant threat and having to be the biggest meanest SOB out there to feel safe.
Not to mention that when you live in a society in which your home and self can be raped and pillaged at any moment you tend to invest quite a bit of resources in protecting your own self. While this can still be seen in society today e.g. Police forces, safes, guns etc. It's no where near the amount of resources that would be wasted if you would be living in the wild west.
While it might not be politically correct to think that you live in a society which is more moral and better than others, the truth is that if you live in the west you most likely live in one. And and in fact he luxury of this life style is what allows you to live in that nice little bubble of political correctness.
I personally believe that moral equivalence (or relativism) leads to moral bankruptcy, and sadly too many people have gone under. They promote the equivalence of the moral values of cultures with completely "different" moral values, values that sorry to say in many cases are objectively less "moral" than modern western values. Cultures that if the roles would've been reversed would not only let them speak but would actively silence them.
And while i might agree that everything might be just an opinion as you would said, there just might be some opinions which are better than others. I would like to live in a free and open society, a society that protects it's members and grants them as many rights as possible without hurting the rights of others and without devolving into anarchy. I rather live in a society that does not practice slavery, where women are equals, and no one gives a fuck what is on your plate or who is in your bedroom. And while you might think that a society that stones women for adultery and hangs homosexuals on construction cranes at the local square is just as moral correct as the one mentioned i would disagree. And if you want to quantify that, just quantify the well being of its members, including the ones that would be stoned, hanged, or locked in prison for life for being of or attracted to the wrong sex or simply by promoting other ideas.
And yes there is a good reason why I've not continued to rebuttal on that "stealing from others" example you've given, because It's too simplistic and irrelevant. A society can be morally bankrupt and still practice law and order. And I'm pretty sure that you would not want to live in a society which either allows crime to be committed without consequences nor practices cruel and unusual punishment in some eye for an eye biblical fashion. Because as much as i would think that the guy who broke into my flat and got away with my TV deserves to pay for his crime (and get some help in the process) i don't think that a boy who stole a loaf of bread from the market should get his hand chopped off because the law says so.
Oh and of course this is all my opinion, but i think given the chance we know exactly in which society people would chose to live in.
[+] [-] flipstewart|11 years ago|reply
http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p
[+] [-] pistle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kenji|11 years ago|reply
"Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t." Yes, yes, they are! Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists! I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!
[+] [-] reedlaw|11 years ago|reply
What about the teaching discussed in the article about there being no moral facts? Should kids accept this proposition just because the education system repeats it over and over again? The teaching itself is a statement with moral implications. Where is the proof for the statement itself?
> Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists!
This viewpoint also contains a truth claim. Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.
[+] [-] paulgerhardt|11 years ago|reply
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY."
― GNU Terry Pratchett
[+] [-] tormeh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dikaiosune|11 years ago|reply
Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already have in your head, hold them as the truth, and wantonly criticize anyone or any system that slights those beliefs.
Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s
Turns out that living in a pluralistic, modern society makes it really hard to reason about moral truths when claimed moral facts are so tightly coupled to cultural baggage. I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.
[+] [-] humanrebar|11 years ago|reply
I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus. That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color or sports team.
[+] [-] proksoup|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] proksoup|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisGranger|11 years ago|reply
I think it's an example of Poe's Law.
[+] [-] EarthLaunch|11 years ago|reply
"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." -Ayn Rand [1]
[1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|11 years ago|reply
I left this article applauding the school and son, and questioning the author.
[+] [-] jvm|11 years ago|reply
He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g.,
> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?
...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions!
He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this definition:
> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would constitute moral proof?
My guess is that the author is crypto-monotheist. With a God around, you could say that a moral claim is God's will, and even if we can't prove it there is a fact of the matter. In a godless world, there is no basis on which a moral claim could be a fact.
[+] [-] lerpa|11 years ago|reply
That could be some positivist definition.
But in general a fact is something held or believed to be true, in that context it doesn't matter if it's self evident, deduced from other facts, known through experience, etc. Also that means some largely held facts can be just plain wrong.
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm|11 years ago|reply
"Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in control of such."
I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact and most all would call it an accurate description of a state of affairs, a fact.
"All men are created equal" is not a fact, or even an opinion imho. It is a hope, a dream of people trying to describe an ideal state of affairs. That it isn't a "fact" doesn't mean that it cannot be something to believe in and strive for.
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact
What makes that a moral fact? What's the moral part?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|11 years ago|reply
This is a popular far right talking point, fear or "moral relativism" and the ridiculous assertion that millions of kids are being indoctrinated into it by public schools. It's horse shit.
[+] [-] bequanna|11 years ago|reply
Two decades ago, when I was in elementary school, we were taught pretty much the exact same thing. If someone states something is a fact, demand proof. And for children, this is good enough. When they grow up to be pedantic associate professors of philisophy, they may feel free to expand on the above definitions.
[+] [-] evincarofautumn|11 years ago|reply
More to the point, if a teacher teaches kids any specific absolute moral system, many of their parents will be upset with it. So the school system only allows teachers to teach what is essentially agnosticism—the absence of a moral position.
The examples from the article can all be dismissed by simple descriptivism:
> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?
A person can be outraged for any reason they want. It happens that this kind of thing outrages a lot of people.
> If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity?
We can, and do, do so arbitrarily. It happens that a lot of people agree on what “crimes against humanity” entail.
> If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?
Humans are occasionally altruistic for some reason.
Isn’t it more interesting to investigate the reasons for why so many humans believe these things than to endlessly conduct the same debates about truth, provability, and knowledge?
[+] [-] sjwright|11 years ago|reply
— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
A situational ethic.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
A situational ethic.
— All men are created equal.
Objectively false.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
Too vague to be either fact or opinion.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
A situational ethic.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
Most likely false.
— Drug dealers belong in prison.
A situational ethic.
[+] [-] yellowapple|11 years ago|reply
"Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat."
I don't think this is an example of something that was ever "proved".
Nevertheless, I feel like the author's grasping for straws in his unwillingness to admit that morality is subjective and situational. He's done nothing to prove that moral values can or should be considered "facts" instead of (or in addition to, as he's advocating) opinions.
[+] [-] clint|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miguelrochefort|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chomp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|11 years ago|reply
If it has moral implications, is it a moral fact?
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ruok0101|11 years ago|reply
What if we say "cheating is not allowed". Can we blame them then?
[+] [-] leereeves|11 years ago|reply