Moral Expertise.

[Nalaar]

I think I've represented by position about as best I can, if you find it unconvincing fair enough, I'll leave it at that.

I will just mention however that I am not a utilitarian, rather than leave that hanging. Thanks for your input.

[Borg Refinery]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_numeral_systems

[Borg Refinery]

I would not be surprised is someone with poor ethical judgement about their kids wellbeing reacted badly to having someone point it out to them.

That is THEIR idea of a kid's wellbeing.

And because you and I have moral expertise we know that their position is wrong.

That isn't relevant to the point.

The point was (using the example that you provided) to illustrate that everyone's ideas are subjective.

Your ideas and my ideas are subjective and different, I believe that God increases wellbeing - you don't, you believe that some utilitarian theory increases wellbeing - I find it very harmful (and disturbing).

Just for example.

To frame it another way - If we agree through logic that 2+2=4, and someone else comes along and is of the opinion that 2+2=5, we know that they are wrong. They are ignorant of Math, logic, etc. They may get angry when confronted with this information, but that doesn't matter. They are, as a matter of fact, wrong.

It's maths with an s.

How is their ignorance in ethics any less obvious than their ignorance of mathematics?

You can't have an opinion on what 2+2 is. You can't have an opinion on whether or not scalding a child is a moral good.

...According to our Hindu-Arabic decimal system and the + and = operators (which were only invented in the middle ages btw), yes.

Preceding its full development, and based on reading left to right or right to left (and placement of most significant digits being different), there is a chance that it could be slightly different in some parts of the world? I can't remember well enough to be soecific -- even +- signs were relatively recent developments.

Do you at all understand what I'm getting at....

[Nalaar]

I would not be surprised is someone with poor ethical judgement about their kids wellbeing reacted badly to having someone point it out to them.

That is THEIR idea of a kid's wellbeing.

And because you and I have moral expertise we know that their position is wrong.

To frame it another way - If we agree through logic that 2+2=4, and someone else comes along and is of the opinion that 2+2=5, we know that they are wrong. They are ignorant of Math, logic, etc. They may get angry when confronted with this information, but that doesn't matter. They are, as a matter of fact, wrong.

How is their ignorance in ethics any less obvious than their ignorance of mathematics?

You can't have an opinion on what 2+2 is. You can't have an opinion on whether or not scalding a child is a moral good.

[Borg Refinery]

I think my position is quite clear, there is no "Subjectivity comes into play" or "Their idea of wellbeing is different to mine and yours". There is only the knowledge that pouring boiling water on children is wrong.

If a parent thinks it's okay to scald their children, we can tell them, from a place of knowledge and expertise, that they are wrong.

And they won't listen and may even react violently, because that's how they are predisposed. That is THEIR idea of a kid's wellbeing.

Do you not get that?

Ever tried lecturing violent people on an estate in how to do things? A bad idea unless you can fight really well.

Obviously anyone with one ounce of moral fibre would be disgusted by this, but your only bet is social services to deal with people who really are that bad.

You sound like someone with very little experience in any of the situations you harp on about...

[Nalaar]

I think my position is quite clear, there is no "Subjectivity comes into play" or "Their idea of wellbeing is different to mine and yours". There is only the knowledge that pouring boiling water on children is wrong.

If a parent thinks it's okay to scald their children, we can tell them, from a place of knowledge and expertise, that they are wrong.

[Borg Refinery]

In fact, you have really boiled the blood this time. I can't believe you basically just accused me of being complicit in someone abusing their kid in such an awful manner. That is a truly nasty lie.

Perhaps it says more about you and the way your brain (if we can call it that) works that you constantly scrape the gunk beneath the sewers and post about tortured/mutilated kids, incest and the most loathsome, grotesque disgusting sickest possible things imaginable. And everyone has said this to you several times over btw - not just me.

Or in other words, you are a self projecting sick f**k.

[Borg Refinery]

I'm saying their idea of wellbeing is different to mine and yours.

We have knowledge that pouring boiling water on children is not maximising their well-being.

And they (the parents) don't.

What part of that is not getting through..?

Just because someone else thinks it's okay to pour boiling water on a child, does not make it so.

Why are you repeating yourself? Do you understand the point being made at all?

This seems to me self evident. I have never spoken with someone who's pushed back against this idea, and so would welcome your contrary input (in part just to see how far you would go), about how you can not apply your own knowledge of wellbeing to others.

It was your example, not mine.

Nowhere did I indicate that it maximizes wellbeing.

I think you are just trolling or want an argument which is disappointing, really.

[Nalaar]

I'm saying their idea of wellbeing is different to mine and yours.

We have knowledge that pouring boiling water on children is not maximising their well-being.

Just because someone else thinks it's okay to pour boiling water on a child, does not make it so.

This seems to me self evident. I have never spoken with someone who's pushed back against this idea, and so would welcome your contrary input (in part just to see how far you would go), about how you can not apply your own knowledge of wellbeing to others.

[Borg Refinery]

It's not the way I think but there are parents out there like that, I'm sure you must have met some yourself.

Do you think that you do not have the moral knowledge to tell a parent that thinks it's okay to pour boiling water on a child that they are wrong to do so?

Um, that has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm saying their idea of wellbeing is different to mine and yours.

Do you or do you not accept that?

I've met parents who smack their kids, I met one who did pour boiling water on her kid but I was only a kid myself, it's hardly logical to expect me to discipline someone else's parent as a 7 year old.

[Nalaar]

It's not the way I think but there are parents out there like that, I'm sure you must have met some yourself.

Do you think that you do not have the moral knowledge to tell a parent that thinks it's okay to pour boiling water on a child that they are wrong to do so?

[Borg Refinery]

What is 'good'? What is 'maximizing wellbeing'?

Am I to believe that we have no idea what a concept like 'wellbeing' is?

No just different interpretations.

By way of an example - does scalding a child's arm with boiling water on their ninth birthday maximise their wellbeing, or not?

I guess some parents would say yes if it teaches them a lesson and they don't do whatever they punished them for again

It's not the way I think but there are parents out there like that, I'm sure you must have met some yourself.

[Nalaar]

What is 'good'? What is 'maximizing wellbeing'?

Am I to believe that we have no idea what a concept like 'wellbeing' is?

By way of an example - does scalding a child's arm with boiling water on their ninth birthday maximise their wellbeing, or not?

[Borg Refinery]

Doesn't any code of moral or ethics need some kind of underlying fundamental principles to fall back on?

Otherwise, it's just whatever any society chose to be their "moral code".  Some random isolated alien society might consider it morally ok to kill all children with a certain colour of eyes.  If that's their moral code and there are no underlying principles, how can it then be challenged?

The principle of maximising well-being would challenge that, quite reasonably I think.

We don't need to imagine this alien species -  we have plenty examples in human history (and present) of societies that were content that the suffering they imposed was a moral good, they were successfully challenged and overthrown, though of couse there's still more work to do, and we can always slide backwards.

Exactly.
Nalaar goes on about moral expertise, which is a term I have not come across before. Possibly because I don't believe there is any human being with moral expertise. Humans make it up as they go along, always have done. What is the moral reference point, please don't say it is the majority view!

I think the "moral reference point" that makes most sense to me is that it is *good* to increase the well-being of conscious creatures.

You say you do not think you believe there is "any human being with moral expertise" should I take that to mean that you think there everyone is equal in their moral standing?

Subjectivity comes into play.

What is 'good'? What is 'maximizing wellbeing'?

JoG is ultimately correct; we are the final arbiter subjectively speaking. I believe God is far above that, but I believe we are making judgements through our own biases all the time. And I reject anyone who says "I've always been unbiased/based my beliefs/opinions/ideas on fact" as that's not possible as facts become altered as new evidence comes to light (for example in science,new theories superseding old ones, new proof rendering invalid old evidenced theories).

[Nalaar]

Never.

My opinion has been swayed on matters factual, matters scientific, and matters political.

But you ask if i have ever had my own judgement on a matter of morality swayed by an external input.

And the answer is no, never.

Fair enough, in which case I don't have any further questions.