2 of 2
2
Philosophical health check: survey
Posted: 06 September 2013 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2885
Joined  2011-08-15

Not really.  It’s just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong.


That was my point as well but I didn’t want to dwell on the details.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29
advocatus - 06 September 2013 07:29 AM
George - 05 September 2013 04:20 AM

Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.

The question said “Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist”.  I agreed, based on my subjective impression AS WELL AS the general consensus of most people.  It’s just the way I interpretted the question.  If they had asking if Picasso was a great artist, I would have had to think about it.

You clearly misunderstood, then. The question had nothing to do with your subjective impression. Agreeing that “Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist” is the same thing as agreeing that 1+1 equals 2, no matter what our subjective impression may be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29
advocatus - 06 September 2013 07:30 AM
George - 04 September 2013 01:49 PM
advocatus - 04 September 2013 11:32 AM

In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong.

Then taking life is sometimes okay, right?

Not really.  It’s just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong.

I really don’t think you’re understanding what the survey is all about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  908
Joined  2005-01-14
George - 06 September 2013 08:29 AM
advocatus - 06 September 2013 07:29 AM
George - 05 September 2013 04:20 AM

Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.

The question said “Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist”.  I agreed, based on my subjective impression AS WELL AS the general consensus of most people.  It’s just the way I interpretted the question.  If they had asking if Picasso was a great artist, I would have had to think about it.

You clearly misunderstood, then. The question had nothing to do with your subjective impression. Agreeing that “Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist” is the same thing as agreeing that 1+1 equals 2, no matter what our subjective impression may be.

It depends upon how you read the question.  Now I completely understand what you’re saying.  But when I took the test I tried to answer the questions as quickly as possible in order to follow my so-called “gut intuition”.  In hindsight I can look back and deconstruct what I was thinking.  When I saw the word “indubitably”, I thought, “well, Michelanglo is generally considered a great artist, but since I believe that art is subjective, that doesn’t necessarily cut much ice with me.  In this case, I happen to agree, so Michelangelo WAS undoubtedly a great artist!”  If they had asking about Picasso or Jackson Pollock, I would have disagreed for the same reason!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  908
Joined  2005-01-14
George - 06 September 2013 08:31 AM
advocatus - 06 September 2013 07:30 AM
George - 04 September 2013 01:49 PM
advocatus - 04 September 2013 11:32 AM

In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong.

Then taking life is sometimes okay, right?

Not really.  It’s just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong.

I really don’t think you’re understanding what the survey is all about.

Hey I can only do the best I can with what I have to work with!  :)

Looking back, if the question had been worded, “Is it always absolutely wrong to kill?”, I would have disagreed, because it implies that there are absolute moral values.  While I agree that there ARE moral values, they are not absolute.  If I were placed in a position where I had a gun and the only way to stop some madman with a loaded Uzi from opening fire on a crowd of people were to kill him, I would probably do it.  NOT because killing him is Right, but because it is marginally Less Wrong than allowing him to gun down twenty other people.  In my opinion, if you ever catch yourself thinking, in this particular situation it’s not wrong to kill, well presumably that was how a whole nation of devout Christian Germans convinced themselves that it wasn’t wrong to kill 6 million Jews.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29

Well, as far as these kinds of moral dilemmas go, I think it’s much easier to accept that moral realism is nonsense and Bob’s your uncle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 10:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 06 September 2013 09:07 AM

Well, as far as these kinds of moral dilemmas go, I think it’s much easier to accept that moral realism is nonsense and Bob’s your uncle.

I’m resigned to being a moral realist now (wasnt always). I just cant accept that inflicting suffering isnt objectively morally wrong in certain situations, like the holocaust.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2013 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9281
Joined  2006-08-29

As a moral realist, Stephen, you would find suffering always wrong, not only in certain situations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2013 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 07 September 2013 07:03 AM

As a moral realist, Stephen, you would find suffering always wrong, not only in certain situations.

Hmm, well in a sense I do due to my belief that we dont have free will.

But in the case of moral dilemmas we have no choice but to look for the lesser of two evils. V sad.

My understanding of moral realism is the idea that its an objective fact that its wrong for me to flog my daughter because she hasnt taken the dog for a walk, for instance.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2