http://ift.tt/1BdKWEB via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1cSPJ2I

http://ift.tt/1T9cot5 via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1KmYSOD

http://ift.tt/1cRjQrk via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1cRjOQg

No text found via /r/quotes http://ift.tt/1LblYGp

http://ift.tt/1Gz50xs via /r/mildlyinteresting http://ift.tt/1J6fisR

http://ift.tt/1NbndGb via /r/interestingasfuck http://ift.tt/1LnXN9Z

http://ift.tt/1Fz7FpS via /r/books http://ift.tt/1fAWt7t

http://ift.tt/1GHCbC0 via /r/dataisbeautiful http://ift.tt/1KatQck

Suppose that astronomers are wondering whether or not there is some planet out beyond the orbit of Neptune. It goes without saying that, before they begin looking for this planet or trying to determine whether or not such a planet could exist, they would need to have some idea of what a planet is or, better yet, what a planet isn’t. With this knowledge in hand they are able to determine whether or not the things they find out beyond the orbit of Neptune, if they find anything at all, are planets or not. So, for instance, though we might find a rubber ducky out beyond the orbit of Neptune we can still maintain that there are no planets there because rubber duckies are not planets.There is a similar conceptual problem in metaethics. That is, in order for coherently answer questions like “are there such things as moral rights and wrongs,” we must first have some idea of what morality is or what it isn’t.In order to frame the objection that I’m about to present regarding moral relativism, let’s consider an analogous (and trivially correct) objection to the purported discovery of a new planet. So imagine that the astronomers from earlier are at their observatory pouring over data from a long night of observing the night sky. Excitedly, one of these astronomers jumps up and shouts “I’ve found a new planet!” When her fellows rush over to see this new planet she produces a bit of scrap paper with a circle drawn on it, a few pencilled in craters, and a label that reads “Planet X.”It goes without saying that she hasn’t really discovered a new planet, but if she were serious in her claim how might her colleagues point out her error? Well it seems pretty obvious. They’d object that drawings on a piece of paper are not planets and that, no matter how many drawings one makes, one will not have drawn a new planet.Conceptual arguments against moral relativism deploy a similar line of thought. When relativists point to preferences and claim to have pinned down what right and wrong are, we can reply that they haven’t done any such thing since our concept of morality is of something other than preferences. In order to see how this goes let’s produce a rough characterization of moral relativism in terms of its conceptual and ontological claims:(Conceptual) If there were any moral facts or true moral claims, they’d be true in virtue of the speaker’s preferences.(Ontological) And of course preferences about things like murder, abortion, and so on do exist, so there are some moral facts.So, for example, the moral relativist might say that when I sincerely speak the phrase “murder is wrong,” that claim is true if and only if I disapprove of murder. What’s more I do disapprove of murder, so the claim is true!The argumentative strategy deployed here will be directed at the conceptual thesis. In order to see how it goes let’s consider an auxiliary claim to moral relativism:(R) Moral disagreements are disagreements about preferences.Note that R follows from the conceptual claim of moral relativism. That is, if our concept of morality is one that has to do with preferences, then disagreements about morality just are disagreements in our preferences. Since R follows from the conceptual claim we can show that claim to be false by showing R to be false. Now we can summarize what I’ve termed the conceptual argument against moral relativism:(1) If moral relativism is true, then moral disagreements are disagreements about preferences.(2) Moral disagreements are not disagreements about preferences.(3) So moral relativism is false.Premise 3 is entailed from 1 and 2 via modus tollens, premise 1 just follows from the definition of relativism, as I laid out above, so the only premise that needs defending is 2: that moral disagreements are not disagreements about preferences. I will defend it now.Let’s start by characterizing two types of disagreement:(Disagreement About Preferences) If Jones and Amy disagree about a preference, neither of them is mistaken. E.g. if Jones prefers strawberry ice cream and Amy prefers chocolate ice cream, neither is incorrect in their preference. Their behavior will usually reflect this as neither will sincerely try to change the position of the other.(Disagreement About Facts) If Jones and Amy disagree about a fact, then at least one of them is mistaken. E.g. if Jones thinks that Mars is the 5th planet from the sun and Amy thinks that it is the 4th, then at least one of them is incorrect in their belief. Their behavior will usually reflect this as they might deliberate over which one is right. Also note that disagreement about a fact doesn’t mean that there is some actual fact of the matter over which to deliberate. So Jones and Amy might disagree over the color of Planet Y and, even though there is no such thing as Planet Y to have a color, their disagreement still bears the form of factual disagreement.In order to see that moral disagreement more closely resembles disagreement about facts than it does disagreement about preferences consider our behavior surrounding moral disagreements. Note that in the case of a moral disagreement we:Deliberate to change the views of others.Do research to inform our own views.Do not laugh it off as “you do things your way and I’ll do things my way.”Do not agree that murder is right for some, but just not our cup of tea.Based on this is seems clear that moral disagreements are more like disagreements about facts and thus our concept of morality is more like the concept of something factual. Since the relativist holds that the concept of morality has to do with preferences, we can conclude that the relativist commits a conceptual error akin to the astronomer who has drawn Planet X. That is, when the relativist points to an agent’s approval or disapproval of some action and says “I’ve found morality,” they are pointing to something that doesn’t match the concept of morality at all.Some who read this might mistakenly assume that this is an argument for moral realism, or the view that there are some objective facts about what’s right and wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conceptual arguments against moral relativism are available to both moral realists and moral error theorist. The only thing that such arguments establish (if successful) is that our concept of morality is of something objective and in that sense moral relativism is mistaken. via /r/philosophy http://ift.tt/1JmVmoH

http://ift.tt/1B115YO via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/1RHMjh7

http://ift.tt/1RKeEn1 via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1LDk2cS

http://ift.tt/1JhijXx via /r/sports http://ift.tt/1g03crF

http://ift.tt/1QNWK7E via /r/oddlysatisfying http://ift.tt/1NgWtEI

http://ift.tt/1Hqy5ju via /r/CemeteryPorn http://ift.tt/1IGKQTz

http://ift.tt/1JhObLu via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/1eTJ4Y4

http://ift.tt/1CMd7pH via /r/OldSchoolCool http://ift.tt/1KusHOA

http://ift.tt/1HxwZEs via /r/interestingasfuck http://ift.tt/1dyiAKc

http://ift.tt/1GS6QcY via /r/WhatIsThisPainting http://ift.tt/1FV7Yvx

http://ift.tt/1LRpTvu via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1CUOkQg

http://ift.tt/1IZRAMv via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1HGM44A

http://ift.tt/1KEhBGN via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Tejv2s

http://ift.tt/1LN0IsU via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1NHqZY9

http://ift.tt/1IYEaQW via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1fdEO5W

http://ift.tt/1ewxyBa via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1CjNVMw

http://ift.tt/1JMN2yB via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1eDns1p

http://ift.tt/1UOQr2b via /r/CemeteryPorn http://ift.tt/1Ph9UrL

http://ift.tt/1JUFsSB via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1J9mhyQ

No text found via /r/quotes http://ift.tt/1SdCiIL

http://ift.tt/1D5hxbn via /r/space http://ift.tt/1UJrcPY

http://ift.tt/1Ja7sMv via /r/toronto http://ift.tt/1gtr6Mu

http://ift.tt/1H5g59K via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1TglEe7

http://ift.tt/1G5y3Ip via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1Toj85m

http://ift.tt/1LTkQKU via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1LTkST4

http://ift.tt/1KIr5PO via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1JPtUNK

http://ift.tt/1HSeAAu via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1HSeyZs

http://ift.tt/1S6xS6u via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1RiRuJu

http://ift.tt/1GYdUWf via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1TcMbsy

http://ift.tt/1Uu21AS via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1NN2MQR

http://ift.tt/1Tkrhb8 via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1gmS5t3

http://ift.tt/1UKdqMQ via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1fucbla

http://ift.tt/1JIhV7t via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1CeLw5s

http://ift.tt/1HbsDQ2 via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1KLTbtF

http://ift.tt/1IEFDQs via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1IEFDQq

http://ift.tt/1CmlT2P via /r/woahdude http://ift.tt/1JNe3C8

http://ift.tt/ZLxhyf via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1KOFYQH

http://ift.tt/1Sb1IXH via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1HeUjBj

http://ift.tt/1HRMbwp via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1HpoIfi

http://ift.tt/1H0rXup via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1H0rVCN

http://ift.tt/1HgAZWA via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1HgB2l9

http://ift.tt/1O9GBV2 via /r/sports http://ift.tt/1UXZeQp

http://ift.tt/1HYQc1X via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Giia1a

http://ift.tt/1MrCORS via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1MrCQcv

http://ift.tt/1gxVF3N via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1dXgh3l

http://ift.tt/1gzH47P via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1CEEdnR

http://ift.tt/1dXYAkn via /r/todayilearned http://ift.tt/1I05ZvF

http://ift.tt/1dYkrIc via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1dYkrrW

http://ift.tt/1SlrHM6 via /r/todayilearned http://ift.tt/1I0hAMZ

http://ift.tt/1fCUqAa via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/1eWDtzy

http://ift.tt/1OdVAxn via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Musska

http://ift.tt/1M5BV3v via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1JhwKIw

http://ift.tt/1Tr2UYj via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Q6mc7u

http://ift.tt/1B8OvME via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1XlKUFd

http://ift.tt/1jpRxnl via /r/gif http://ift.tt/1LFqjQ2

http://ift.tt/1XCRB0x via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1lqEfrK

http://ift.tt/1T1M2Ht via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1XdsoPf

http://ift.tt/1QYw4PY via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1N2x7Z3

http://ift.tt/1NvBZwn via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1MF8Knj

http://ift.tt/1MQytqw via /r/OldSchoolCool http://ift.tt/1kSJgd4

http://ift.tt/1PWionJ via /r/woahdude http://ift.tt/1Op0c4z

http://ift.tt/1wALlvn via /r/todayilearned http://ift.tt/1j45LtJ

http://ift.tt/1xDXr5H via /r/todayilearned http://ift.tt/1LmsIis

http://ift.tt/1OLMOc5 via /r/aww http://ift.tt/1MwbaS3

https://youtu.be/Jv9Gghy6Lj4 via /r/videos http://ift.tt/1SfeE03

http://ift.tt/1M5kaOK via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1iwizc4

http://ift.tt/1M2TSg0 via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1N1YkeD

http://ift.tt/1KFDboR via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/20ajhhh

http://ift.tt/1PVydeD via /r/gifs http://ift.tt/1Rfj2vi

http://ift.tt/1jLskEQ via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1MeWDK8

http://ift.tt/1R1OxJb via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/1MaUjnn

http://ift.tt/1Gqr7Nf via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Xs7iJD

http://ift.tt/1R6duTM via /r/sports http://ift.tt/1O0TQe2

http://ift.tt/1jF1kGs via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1LwvuXk

http://ift.tt/1QDWPqm via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1LV71gn

http://ift.tt/1M0Eccf via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1NQBVqB

http://ift.tt/1Ndpou3 via /r/funny http://ift.tt/1Ph90Mr

http://ift.tt/1MqYf3V via /r/reactiongifs http://ift.tt/1X564Up