How are moral assertions connected with the world of facts?

[GeD]

Life might not be whole lot of fun for a sadist who respects the wishes of others, but there will always be deviants from any collective norm; this does not necessarily undermine the authority of the norm.

Of course. But some do not want to obey the "authority" of the collective norm.

Thus, the "deviants" will be punished - not because the collective norm is metaphysically "true" - but because the collective norm has more power than those "deviants" that oppose them.

 

[learningphysics]

Yes:

(1) Assuming your definition to be correct, the sadist inflicts pain in order to induce pleasure, making pleasure the overriding principle in the exchange, and thereby a 'good' action.

(2) As I understand it, a sadist is not someone who is nice to masochists, rather it is someone who derives pleasure from inflicting pain and or mental anguish in others. A true sadist is unlikely to derive a great deal of satisfaction from indulging the desires of a masochist. Under this definition, a sadistic action would be a 'bad' action.

I agree with the above.

A more interesting type of masochist (a fictional type, but more relevant to this topic) is one that derives 0 pleasure from painful acts, but still inflicts pain upon himself. He gets no satisfaction out of it. Let us also suppose that nobody benefits from his painful acts on himself. Also, let's assume that this masochist is not ignorant. He fully knows that he will derive 0 pleasure, and nobody benefits.

Can such a type of masochist exist? Is there any possible reason for such a person to exert pain on himself? What would such a reason be?

 

[katelynndevere]

Of course. But some do not want to obey the "authority" of the collective norm.

Thus, the "deviants" will be punished - not because the collective norm is metaphysically "true" - but because the collective norm has more power than those "deviants" that oppose them.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'metaphysically true'; could you explain, please?

Deviants are not necessarily punished. In fact, many forms of deviance are tolerated and accepted by, and eventually incorporated into the mainstream. We didn't execute punk-rockers for having green hair and safety pins through their noses, after all.

However, you're right about the power of the majority. Isn't all morality (where morality polarises 'good' and 'bad') determined by majority consensus? Could there be any other kind? Even rational anarchy presupposes a collective agreement about rationalism. In fact, it is possible to make a very good case for all of physical reality as we know it being the result of a consensus of opinion.

I think you may have misunderstood what I mean by authority; I'm not talking about jack-booted troopers enforcing comformity and punishing deviants. I'm only referring to the legitimacy of the concept of 'right' agreed upon by members of a group. If nine out of ten people in a club agree on a particular mode of behaviour, that becomes the norm for the group, even if one out of ten dissents. The dissension or deviance of the one does not diminish the legitimacy of the norm. That is not to say that the one must necessarily be wrong, just because they are different.

A moral assertion however, does allow for the statement that the deviant is 'wrong'. Morals are like 'norms-plus', in that they are required or strongly preferred norms. They are usually the product of group consensus, to the extent that they tend to be rejected or changed when sufficient members of a group reject them: that's why women now have the vote, and overt segregation is a thing of the past in the USA. There is nothing inherently sinister about the consensual, collective nature of morals, or the concept of deviance from a collective norm. It is because more people agree than disagree, that murder and rape are considered 'bad' and subject to harsh punishments. This is a collective norm which has become 'required' to the point where deviance is punishable, and rightly so.

 

[GeD]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'metaphysically true'; could you explain, please?

That means that the collective norm is not actually "right", it's just that they have the power to enforce their beliefs.

However, you're right about the power of the majority. Isn't all morality (where morality polarises 'good' and 'bad') determined by majority consensus? Could there be any other kind? Even rational anarchy presupposes a collective agreement about rationalism. In fact, it is possible to make a very good case for all of physical reality as we know it being the result of a consensus of opinion.

Yes, morality is for the greater number. And thus, morality supports the weak - it must level everyone's power, or the stronger will take over. The wrong in morality are thus the deviants - whoever is stronger or different from the standard of the majority.

It is because more people agree than disagree, that murder and rape are considered 'bad' and subject to harsh punishments. This is a collective norm which has become 'required' to the point where deviance is punishable, and rightly so.

Yet this authority to punish does not actually exist - it does not tell us that they are "correct" (metaphysically true). It is only a sign that the enforcers of the morality have greater power. Morality is that consolidated belief structure of the overall group, that focuses the peoples' combined strength into enforcing those beliefs. The degree of truth a morality promises is just dependent on the group's beliefs, not any "actual truth" - I think we agree with that one.