Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 06-01-2004, 05:05 AM

Okay, I think I see what you're trying to get at, Manic, but correct me if I'm getting it wrong. You're NOT saying that there is no ethical truth, since ethical truth is by definition prescriptive (i.e., by saying something is good, I'm saying that people should do that thing), and you say that it's valid for me to say that other people's actions are wrong. But you are saying that we can't KNOW what is right and wrong. Now, to some extent I agree with this position -- there are certainly cases where reasonable people can disagree. For example, while I believe that killing in self-defense is wrong, I have more than enough doubts in this belief of mine, so that I wouldn't advise someone to seek forgiveness if they had done so. This is just basic epistemic humility. But where I disagree is in the thought that ALL ethical truths are like this. Certainly we know that the killing of an innocent arbitrarily is wrong, just like we know that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. And just like with math, the fact that we need to be taught ethical truths is no evidence that they are just a matter of taste. We need to be taught math as well, but I've never seen someone arguing a bill on the principle "Well, that's just YOUR math."

And while we're on taste. I've noticed that alot of otherwise reasonable people tend to think that taste is purely subjective. What I find 'beautiful' is just my opinion, and there are no objective grounds for finding it so. (Let me note that by beautiful here I just mean 'aesthetically good'.) I don't think this is true. There's a distinction to be drawn here. Let me use anime as an example, since I'm more familiar with that than other forms of art. My favorite anime series is Martian Successor Nadesico, and I've yet to see the anime that I enjoy more than that one. Yet, I recognize that there is anime that is, objectively, more beautiful than Nadesico; Boogiepop Phantom, for example. So, while to some extent our judgments of art are subjective, with some thought and self-distancing we can also recognize objective value in art.

To conclude, of course one's belief that something is true doesn't make it true. But that's just a confused argument for relativism. In fact, constructivist forms of relativism would hold just the opposite, that believing (or perceiving) something to be true makes it true, and that's WHY there is relativism. The fact that my beliefs don't affect reality seems to me to be powerful evidence for the fact that there is reality, in the ethical and aesthetic spheres no less than in the epistemic sphere, independent from me and so objective.

06-01-2004, 05:05 AM	#12 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Okay, I think I see what you're trying to get at, Manic, but correct me if I'm getting it wrong. You're NOT saying that there is no ethical truth, since ethical truth is by definition prescriptive (i.e., by saying something is good, I'm saying that people should do that thing), and you say that it's valid for me to say that other people's actions are wrong. But you are saying that we can't KNOW what is right and wrong. Now, to some extent I agree with this position -- there are certainly cases where reasonable people can disagree. For example, while I believe that killing in self-defense is wrong, I have more than enough doubts in this belief of mine, so that I wouldn't advise someone to seek forgiveness if they had done so. This is just basic epistemic humility. But where I disagree is in the thought that ALL ethical truths are like this. Certainly we know that the killing of an innocent arbitrarily is wrong, just like we know that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. And just like with math, the fact that we need to be taught ethical truths is no evidence that they are just a matter of taste. We need to be taught math as well, but I've never seen someone arguing a bill on the principle "Well, that's just YOUR math." And while we're on taste. I've noticed that alot of otherwise reasonable people tend to think that taste is purely subjective. What I find 'beautiful' is just my opinion, and there are no objective grounds for finding it so. (Let me note that by beautiful here I just mean 'aesthetically good'.) I don't think this is true. There's a distinction to be drawn here. Let me use anime as an example, since I'm more familiar with that than other forms of art. My favorite anime series is Martian Successor Nadesico, and I've yet to see the anime that I enjoy more than that one. Yet, I recognize that there is anime that is, objectively, more beautiful than Nadesico; Boogiepop Phantom, for example. So, while to some extent our judgments of art are subjective, with some thought and self-distancing we can also recognize objective value in art. To conclude, of course one's belief that something is true doesn't make it true. But that's just a confused argument for relativism. In fact, constructivist forms of relativism would hold just the opposite, that believing (or perceiving) something to be true makes it true, and that's WHY there is relativism. The fact that my beliefs don't affect reality seems to me to be powerful evidence for the fact that there is reality, in the ethical and aesthetic spheres no less than in the epistemic sphere, independent from me and so objective. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche