tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6379520352010496282..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Moral Absolutes and Moral ArroganceAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88916624591439010362008-09-24T22:40:00.000-06:002008-09-24T22:40:00.000-06:00barefoot bumYour dispute here with me appears to b...<B>barefoot bum</B><BR/><BR/>Your dispute here with me appears to be merely semantic. I am using the term "moral arrogance" to refer to any position where a person says, "I cannot be mistaken."<BR/><BR/>This does not necessarily presuppose that there is an objective fact of the matter. One of the ways that a person can be in a state of "cannot be mistaken" is because the possibility of a false moral claim simply does not exist.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50829003022498387332008-09-24T14:15:00.000-06:002008-09-24T14:15:00.000-06:00Gotta disagree with the barefoot bum. A moral subj...Gotta disagree with the barefoot bum. A moral subjectivist can be arrogant, but the "and you're wrong" part is just directed somewhat differently.<BR/><BR/>Let's say I'm someone who believes that everyone is right about their own personal morals. My neighbor is right that he should never kill anyone, and I'm right that I should kill whomever I please. As a radical subjectivist, I would never tell my neighbor that he should start killing. But if he tells me I should stop killing, he is wrong, for trying to impose his private morality upon me.<BR/><BR/>I'm still refusing to acknowledge any possibility that my own actions are wrong. And when my neighbor disagrees about <I>my</I> actions, he's wrong. That's still an arrogant stance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13686893914362376122008-09-22T08:37:00.000-06:002008-09-22T08:37:00.000-06:00Moral subjectivism tells us that our moral opinion...<I>Moral subjectivism tells us that our moral opinions cannot be mistaken. We cannot make a mistake in measuring moral value, because there is no objective reality against which our beliefs can be compared. There is no "moral truth" for us to be wrong about.<BR/>...<BR/>For somebody who is morally arrogant - who wants to assert the impossibility of making a moral mistake - moral subjectivism is a dream come true. Moral subjectivism eliminates all possibility of being wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>Non sequitur. You're confusing moral subjectivism (or meta-ethical subjective relativism) with moral <I>intuitionism</I>: that our moral intuitions are a reliable or authoritative epistemic basis to determine objective moral truth.<BR/><BR/>An arrogant person must, by definition, believe that he is <I>correct</I>, and those who disagree with him are <I>mistaken</I>. (To be specifically <I>arrogant</I> he must also be either incorrect or lack a sufficient epistemic basis for his assertion.)<BR/><BR/>Moral subjectivism, as you describe it, flatly contradicts the necessary precondition for arrogance.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com