Why moral fundamentalism is wrong.

H

Hume

Verified User
Moral fundamentalism is a drag on democracy. This drag is to be expected when people feel backed into a corner, or when their social position limits opportunities. But fundamentalism anywhere blocks communication and inquiry across differences. Whenever people suppose their reading of a problem is exhaustive, they autocratically predefine what’s relevant and they covertly prejudge alternatives. They assume, as a matter of course, that others are stubbornly refusing to accept the interpretation that is staring right out at them.

blog.oup.com

What’s the matter with moral fundamentalism?

Inspired by fellow philosopher Anthony Weston, I often ask my ethics students to create a diabolical toolkit of rules that would torpedo public dialogue. The idea here, I explain, is to spell out rules that would maximize the distance between “us” and “them,” ensuring that possibilities for...
blog.oup.com
 
Just another leftist philosopher who does not like conservatives and makes up derogatory names for them and their beliefs.
He is a kindred soul for you to hang with.
 
Relative morality is a farce. Whether they want to admit it or not, God's way is the accepted standard.
 

1. What is it?​

A moral fundamentalist may be defined as someone who acts as if they have access to: (1) the exclusively right way to diagnose moral or political problems and (2) the single approvable practical solution to any particular problem.
 
"Moral fundamentalism is a vice because it obstructs communication, constricts deliberation about what’s possible, and underwrites bad decisions. Social inquiry is more honest, collaborative, rigorous, and productive when youths learn to be patient with the suspense of reflection, open to discomfort and dissent, resolute yet distrustful of tunnel-vision, aware of the fallibility and incompleteness of any decision or policy, practiced in listening, and imaginative in pursuing creative leads.

blog.oup.com

What’s the matter with moral fundamentalism?

Inspired by fellow philosopher Anthony Weston, I often ask my ethics students to create a diabolical toolkit of rules that would torpedo public dialogue. The idea here, I explain, is to spell out rules that would maximize the distance between “us” and “them,” ensuring that possibilities for...
blog.oup.com
 
Hume said:
Moral fundamentalism is a drag on democracy. This drag is to be expected when people feel backed into a corner, or when their social position limits opportunities. But fundamentalism anywhere blocks communication and inquiry across differences. Whenever people suppose their reading of a problem is exhaustive, they autocratically predefine what’s relevant and they covertly prejudge alternatives. They assume, as a matter of course, that others are stubbornly refusing to accept the interpretation that is staring right out at them.

blog.oup.com

What’s the matter with moral fundamentalism?

Inspired by fellow philosopher Anthony Weston, I often ask my ethics students to create a diabolical toolkit of rules that would torpedo public dialogue. The idea here, I explain, is to spell out rules that would maximize the distance between “us” and “them,” ensuring that possibilities for...
blog.oup.com
Click to expand...
Reality is a legal means to get away with denying how evolving happens in plain sight allowing corruption to manifest a physical eternal hell for the 5 generation gaps living eternally separated daily being promised a better afterlife when dead, than each day evolving uniquely here as eternally separated since conceived so far.
 
Hume said:

1. What is it?​

A moral fundamentalist may be defined as someone who acts as if they have access to: (1) the exclusively right way to diagnose moral or political problems and (2) the single approvable practical solution to any particular problem.
Click to expand...
Just another way for pseudointellects to categorize and cast dispersion on conservatives.
 
Hume said:
Moral fundamentalism is a drag on democracy. This drag is to be expected when people feel backed into a corner, or when their social position limits opportunities. But fundamentalism anywhere blocks communication and inquiry across differences. Whenever people suppose their reading of a problem is exhaustive, they autocratically predefine what’s relevant and they covertly prejudge alternatives. They assume, as a matter of course, that others are stubbornly refusing to accept the interpretation that is staring right out at them.

blog.oup.com

What’s the matter with moral fundamentalism?

Inspired by fellow philosopher Anthony Weston, I often ask my ethics students to create a diabolical toolkit of rules that would torpedo public dialogue. The idea here, I explain, is to spell out rules that would maximize the distance between “us” and “them,” ensuring that possibilities for...
blog.oup.com
Click to expand...
Reading that article, the author far more defines the use of opinion without facts, and emotion, as a basis for a position than some sort of moral argument.

For example, he says this:

Many of my liberal-identified students interpret the activity as a sendup of conservatives. Their imagined toolkit-users sport “Make America Great Again” hats and threaten DEI advocates. Meanwhile, many of my conservative students interpret the activity as damning liberal wokeness, virtue signaling, and cancel culture.

That is argument for opinion and emotion without using any facts. I can say, from discussions with both Leftists and Conservatives, that all-too-often, that is the basis for their positions. I believe it, that settles it! When you ask someone with that mindset why they believe it, and ask for examples, you are met with emotion rather than facts and analysis--Fuck you! You're an asshole!

It's like belief in a religion. Facts don't matter to such people. It's as if Catholics of old were debating Protestants in Martin Luther's day.

What the author of that piece argues isn't, "Make a better argument," but rather "Learn to live with idiots who can't make a sound argument." At no point in his article does Fesmire ever use the word, 'fact,' nor does he at any point try to advise use of logic or reason. It's a shit article by an idiot advocating foisting a better opinion based on emotion and nothing more.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Reading that article, the author far more defines the use of opinion without facts, and emotion, as a basis for a position than some sort of moral argument.

For example, he says this:

Many of my liberal-identified students interpret the activity as a sendup of conservatives. Their imagined toolkit-users sport “Make America Great Again” hats and threaten DEI advocates. Meanwhile, many of my conservative students interpret the activity as damning liberal wokeness, virtue signaling, and cancel culture.

That is argument for opinion and emotion without using any facts. I can say, from discussions with both Leftists and Conservatives, that all-too-often, that is the basis for their positions. I believe it, that settles it! When you ask someone with that mindset why they believe it, and ask for examples, you are met with emotion rather than facts and analysis--Fuck you! You're an asshole!

It's like belief in a religion. Facts don't matter to such people. It's as if Catholics of old were debating Protestants in Martin Luther's day.

What the author of that piece argues isn't, "Make a better argument," but rather "Learn to live with idiots who can't make a sound argument." At no point in his article does Fesmire ever use the word, 'fact,' nor does he at any point try to advise use of logic or reason. It's a shit article by an idiot advocating foisting a better opinion based on emotion and nothing more.
Click to expand...
The article is about morality. What would a moral fact be?
 
Hume said:
The article is about morality. What would a moral fact be?
Click to expand...
No, the article is about making a moral argument. That is, an argument from opinion and emotion. Morals are not factual but rather positions agreed upon by society. One society's moral position may be abhorrent to another's, but it will almost always be a matter of opinion.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, the article is about making a moral argument. That is, an argument from opinion and emotion. Morals are not factual but rather positions agreed upon by society. One society's moral position may be abhorrent to another's, but it will almost always be a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
So there are no moral facts.
 
Hume said:
Moral fundamentalism is a drag on democracy. This drag is to be expected when people feel backed into a corner, or when their social position limits opportunities. But fundamentalism anywhere blocks communication and inquiry across differences. Whenever people suppose their reading of a problem is exhaustive, they autocratically predefine what’s relevant and they covertly prejudge alternatives. They assume, as a matter of course, that others are stubbornly refusing to accept the interpretation that is staring right out at them.

blog.oup.com

What’s the matter with moral fundamentalism?

Inspired by fellow philosopher Anthony Weston, I often ask my ethics students to create a diabolical toolkit of rules that would torpedo public dialogue. The idea here, I explain, is to spell out rules that would maximize the distance between “us” and “them,” ensuring that possibilities for...
blog.oup.com
Click to expand...
can you give an example of your abstract chain of supposition?
 
Hume said:
So there are no moral facts.
Click to expand...
Not many. For example, take say adultery. One society might find it an irrelevance. They see it as Have sex with whoever... Another society might see it as abhorrent and assign those caught to death. Both positions are equally valid since both are based on the society's opinions of what's right and wrong.

Murder, on the other hand, is a universal seen as wrong. So that one has a factual basis.

The whole discussion of LGBTPDQRSTUV+- is one of relativity, not absolutes. So, there are few facts to be had in most of that discussion. Emotion and opinion reign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top