All your disagreements here seem to consist in one what I would see as a misunderstanding. Ethics is about how best to live; that is what it consists in. Obviously though this will be context-based. If you want to live alone, then nothing I have said about participating in community applies to you. (Having said that an argument could be made that a solitary life can never be the best life for a human being, given that we are social creatures). — Janus

You do not need to explain to me what ethics is about, nor do you need to be doing ethics. That is not helping at all. My objection is that that is off topic. We should be doing meta-ethics instead.

So, to repeat what I have said in other posts, if you want to participate in community then exploitation is going to be a stumbling block to your aim. Most people do want to participate, so exploitation is ethically wrong for them. If you are a criminal who lives on the fringes, then this will not apply to you, except that if you want participate in a criminal sub-culture it will apply in that context, but not in the larger context of the whole society. — Janus

No, repeating your problematic comments won't help either. I have no interest in agreeing or disagreeing with content I judge to be off topic.

To get back on topic, tell me in what sense this is a moral truth, and how you know it to be true. That would be meta-ethics, as confirmed by the Wikipedia article.

Ethics and moral philosophy are not really much different except that moral philosophy is usually taken to involve others; whereas ethics does not necessarily by definition do so. There's no point trying to browbeat me into agreeing that I am not doing meta-ethics and that I am thus "off-topic" because that would only be so on your interpretation of a definition, which I don't accept. I see nothing in the wiki article you quoted which is out of accordance with what I am doing here. — Janus

Sigh. Explain to me how your conditionals are in any way relevant to the sort of meta-ethical questions on the set agenda of this discussion, as opposed to those on your own agenda, which seems largely descriptive and normative. How does saying that if you want to work towards a harmonious society, then you should be a virtuous person, address any meta-ethical problem set out in the Wikipedia article that has been on the set agenda here. It doesn't tell us what morality is, it doesn't tell us about moral truths, or moral truth theories, or the meaning of moral statements, or how a moral truth is known, or anything about moral relativism or universalism or objectivism or absolutism. It seems frankly useless and irrelevant.

Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments. Meta-ethics is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics and applied ethics.

While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do?", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations.

Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that studying moral judgments about proper actions can guide us to a true account of the nature of morality.

According to Richard Garner and Bernard Rosen,[1] there are three kinds of meta-ethical problems, or three general questions:

What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments? (moral semantics)

What is the nature of moral judgments? (moral ontology)

How may moral judgments be supported or defended? (moral epistemology)

A question of the first type might be, "What do the words 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' mean?" (see value theory). The second category includes questions of whether moral judgments are universal or relative, of one kind or many kinds, etc. Questions of the third kind ask, for example, how we can know if something is right or wrong, if at all. Garner and Rosen say that answers to the three basic questions "are not unrelated, and sometimes an answer to one will strongly suggest, or perhaps even entail, an answer to another."[1]

A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not attempt to evaluate specific choices as being better, worse, good, bad, or evil; although it may have profound implications as to the validity and meaning of normative ethical claims. An answer to any of the three example questions above would not itself be a normative ethical statement. — Wikipedia

That should clear things up a bit.

I should have amplified the question to not only ask whether it is sensible to think that people should follow their passions, but also to ask whether it is sensible to believe that they do follow their passions and only their passions. — Janus

Only the latter is relevant.

The purpose of ethics is to understand how best to live, and to practice in accordance with that understanding. So, the first principle for anyone who wants to live in a community is how best to harmonize with the other members of the community. — Janus

The question of how best to live is a question in normative ethics, so it should not be addressed here. The primary question which began the discussion was that of what morality is, not what the purpose of ethics is, or should be. The latter was a red herring that was introduced later, and whoever introduced it has earned my scorn, as I am very stern about sticking to the topic and remaining on point, and this really didn't help.

I just don't think the idea that ethics consists in individual's feelings alone is adequate to give a comprehensive account. — Janus

That is the sort of thing that you should confine yourself to talking about.

If you want to participate in a community then you should care, not only about yourself, but about the community; otherwise you are not really participating, but exploiting. If you want to benefit from the community without giving anything in return, without caring about the other members or the welfare of the whole community, then you are basically a disingenuous, even dishonest, individual. This is on account of the fact that you could not be honest about your intentions, because if you were you would be shunned. That might work for you for a while but it cannot but end badly. — Janus

No! That is normative ethics again!

Also I think it is an ethical truth that if you exploit others you also exploit yourself. — Janus

That is moving more in the right direction. Talking about whether there are any moral truths, and if so, in what sense they are moral truths, and how they are known to be so, is meta-ethics. So these are the kind of follow-up questions which you should be addressing.

This cannot be the best way to live, and if ethics is about how best to live, then it cannot be ethical at all, by any measure. — Janus

No! That is basically saying that it is wrong. This isn't simply about what you or I think is wrong. Do you understand that? It is about a deeper philosophical examination. It is a sort of "one step removed" thing, hence the "meta".

Is it really sensible to think that everyone should be ruled by their passions? — Janus

Questions of what "should be" are not even on the set agenda here. Nor are questions such as whether moral relativism is bad ("exploitative", "selfish", etc.), as opposed to whether it is true. That would be normative ethics, and would be for a different discussion.

I don't understand why people cannot, or choose not to, stick to the original topic. That entire post was either descriptive (e.g. people generally believe such-and-such is wrong) or normative (as indicated above for example). I know that your reply wasn't a reply to me, but rather to Isaac, and maybe the two of you want to discuss something else, but I still find it frustrating that so much time and effort is going into producing lengthy posts about that sort of thing, when it is off topic.

Remember that this discussion is about morality itself, as the title indicates, and that it began with a quoted passage which made a claim about what morality is, namely that it isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behaviour that they consider more significant than etiquette. What people approve or disapprove of in ethics is not at all helpful in this context.

That is an example of what meta-ethics looks like. Take note.

Thanks, I appreciate that. There seems so few sense makers here that ive wondered if it isnt just a matter of the medium or miscommunication of some kind but...how in the fuck can you know when most everyones not making sense!? Lol
I dont even care if some is ignorant or dumb, who isnt ignorant or dumb about something, but its not recognising ones own limitations or not having the humility to have an open mind to being wrong I find truly irksome. Plus, I don’t WANT to sound like an arrogant prick but...so many being so wrong. Whats a guy to do? — DingoJones

Beat 'em over the head with logic and dry wit. They might never sense, but it feels good to beat people over the head.

There is no "u" in thanks. — Frank Apisa

Okay, thunks.

You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job. :wink: — I like sushi

Best criticism I've seen so far.

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies. — I like sushi

Billy, Bob, Sue, Shirley (I never liked her), Johnathan, Wendy, Christopher (he always puts too much sugar in my coffee), Mark, James, Carl, Sandy (she's nice, but she smells like old socks), Tommy, Shaun, Belinda, Georgina (she refused to kiss me in year 7), @Baden, John, Humphrey, William, Graham, Gertrude (horrible name), Little Timmy Cratchit, Frank (always makes an excuse to leave before buying his round), Sally, David, Sheila, Rumpelstiltskin, Robert (never laughs at my jokes), Auntie Pauline, Katina, Dalai Lama, Arthur (he once gave me a funny look), Gregory...

Imagine two balls. — Louco

:snicker:

Thanks. — Frank Apisa

No u!

I know, I just had to let the steam out a bit or my head would explode. After reading through the responses in the “kill 1 billion” thread Ive began wondering why im here at all. Screw the “forest for the trees”, I cant see the worthwhile discussion for the philosophically brain dead. What are you guys up to in the “Morality” thread? 64 pages? Astounding fortitude sir. I do not have it in me. — DingoJones

No! Don't go. You're one of the few people who talks real sense around here. It is reassuring. But at the same time, I completely understand the feeling, brother.

I am simply telling you I am not a theist nor an atheist. — Frank Apisa

Yes, you've already made it crystal clear to everyone that you do not identify as either. Congrats.

Such as? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Such as all of the religious nonsense. All of it.

In the name of baby jesus this is getting SO tiresome.
Not believing in at least one god is what atheism means! You have just declared you are not an atheist by describing your atheism!
Help me Odin, Zeus, Thor, Oprah, Hubberd...fucking anyone take my hand and guide me to where something so simple can be understood! Fuck!
Is it just the internet?! Please oh holy god of holyness, tell me its just the internet and this isnt what passes for a critical thinking person in the world at large.
Phew. Done. Carry on, sorry you had to be the back breaking straw frank, but THINK about what you are saying! — DingoJones

Forget your logic. He simply does NOT like BEING CALLED an ATHEIST. Or a THEIST. It TRIGGERS him.

AND DON'T ACCUSE HIM OF SHOUTING!!! HE'S JUST EMPHASISING!!!!!!!111!!!!!!1!!ONE!!

He said that it follows. That is logical terminology. Surely he recognises that and knows that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, yet he replies with, "Yes, there ought to be a garden".

Facepalm.

The original claim is a matter of basic logic, specifically logical validity. He presented an argument that is incomplete, and, as presented, is a non sequitur. So no, it doesn't follow. That is the meaning of the Latin phrase, and it means that the argument is invalid.

It simply won't do to apply common sense assumptions about what the promise suggests if that doesn't work as a valid argument. Don't use logical terminology if you can't back it up or don't understand what you're talking about.

If he is capable of putting together a complete and valid argument, then he should stop wasting time and do so, and then we can move forward to discussing soundness.

When a sincere speaker says "I promise to plant a rose garden on Sunday", then it follows that there ought be a rose garden planted on Sunday.

You disagree, apparently. — creativesoul

And I do, too. It shows that you do not understand logical validity.

And this exact same example of yours has been previously identified as erroneous by me. Two months ago: I just looked it up.

"It is like trying to throw a feather; for some things, breath is better than strength; stronger". — StreetlightX

Or you could tape it to a tennis ball.

@Baden, Bart Simpson wisdom.

I don't do storytime, full stop. You're as bad as them in some respects. But yes, I get the analogy you make and agree with it. They explain the bad away with apologism in order to maintain their precious self-deception. Heaven forbid they boldly face up to reality without cowardice.

There is so much in reality to fill me with wonder and amazement and a sense of profundity, that I do not need and actively discourage treating myths as anything other than myths. I am currently reading a book called Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey To Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli, and I would pick that sort of book over any religious fiction, and over Harry Potter and The I Don't Give a Damn.

Madness is to immerse oneself in one's imagination; it is to destroy reality, and build it anew, each breath one takes. — Louco

That sounds like madness as put by a romantic poet. True madness isn't quite reflected in your pretty poetry.

There are those who chose religion, and I respect their choice. — Louco

What's to respect about it?

But I do find it disrespectful to confound these things. Religious folk are the stiffeners of thought; madmen are facilitators of imagination. When you say religion is madness, you make a disservice to madness. — Louco

It is somewhat of a paradox, it seems. They get carried away by their imagination, yet they're usually very unimaginative. They're usually a member of an organised religion, and feel the need to dogmatically conform.

What is not absurd? That small balls hit each other and that builds reality? Or that spirit becomes flesh? — Louco

The former is not absurd. It is the result of a wealth of scientific evidence. The latter is religious mumbo-jumbo.

Madness is just another option. Up to you to take it. — Louco

No, it isn't a choice for me. I cannot help but follow where reason leads me. Religious faith is just madness with widespread approval.

Take gravity, for instance: we fall down when risen above the ground. This happens because of the faith in that what has risen, must fall. — Louco

You're joking, right? Bodies do not fall to the ground because we have faith that they must. That's absurd.

We can fly using planes and helicopters: it is the faith in scientific machines that makes them fly. — Louco

Haha! You're funny. I could've sworn I had filled the engine with fuel, not faith.

How's the search going?

Nothing yet? That's what I thought. But keep searching. Maybe if you search hard enough you'll deceive yourself into thinking you've discovered God, the angels, and the heavens above. I discovered that I was in fact a billionaire with looks that would put Brad Pitt to shame at his peak that way.

"Under this paradigm...". And there, ladies and gentleman, lies the inherent weakness. Also, what's worthy or not is obviously a matter of subjective judgement, not a matter of deferring to the Word of Kant. I don't subscribe to a version of divine command theory where Kant is God.

Yeah...like the lack of evidence that there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...

...is evidence that no sentient beings live on any of those planets.

Good grief.

What are you doing in a philosophy forum? — Frank Apisa

You must not have read what I said about what the evidence was for, or you just thought that it would be entertaining to attack a straw man. Perhaps you had blind faith that I meant something completely different to what I wrote. Are you a theist, perchance?

"The evidence!"

What a laugh.

Identify two pieces of unambiguous evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue. — Frank Apisa

The absence of evidence in favour of the existence of God is absence of evidence in favour of reasonable grounds for belief, and that is evidence for rejection. If you're okay with abandoning reason, then go ahead and believe in God, if you can. I cannot, because my reason prevents me. The alternative is called either atheism or agnosticism, but it's the same difference in this sense, although some people get their nickers in a twist over the terminology.

Should have been "feelings." — Frank Apisa

I still do not understood. What are "feelings"?

My guess is you do not. — Frank Apisa

I do not understood? :chin:

feeling — Frank Apisa

Does not compute.

I am not her for that. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Understood, my lady.

To be fair to him, you only changed one letter and added a comma. — leo

:rofl:

My atheist church is known colloquially as the pub. Instead of the body and blood of Christ, they have beer and crisps. Actually, come to think of it, they have the blood of Christ, too. Bottles and bottles of the stuff.

I am NOT a theist. — Frank Apisa

That's right. He's NOT a theist. He's a WEAK ATHEIST.

Don't mind him. He wants to draw a false equivalence and pretend that it's 50/50. If he bothers you, you should call him an atheist or challenge his alleged credentials. That really triggers him.

Sorry, all I could concentrate on was the word "crack", and I found myself overcome by an insatiable desire for it, so I ran and grabbed my Bible, and then my desire was satiated.

There's too much good cheer in here. Can you guys keep the noise down? Some of us are trying to lovingly gaze at their own reflection in a puddle.

But well done, @ArguingWAristotleTiff.

it is a high vibrational energy — 0 thru 9

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. High vibrational energy to everything and everyone, all the time! :victory:

This is a big aside, but don't people realize that when they write so many long posts in such a short period of time that most of what they're writing isn't going to be addressed or even digested very well (if read at all)? — Terrapin Station

This is an even bigger aside, but I once wrote a post so long that I would fall asleep whilst writing it, and I would continue to write it whilst I was asleep. Back then, posts were called "books". It ended up being published in the year 1807. I wrote it under a pseudonym, and I gave it the title, The Phenomenology of Spirit.

It now exists solely as a warning never to fall asleep whilst writing a book on philosophy.

In other threads, and on other forums, I have found that the most common 'strain' of philosophers have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, seeking to strike it down wherever they find it. Which is not very open-minded either. — Pattern-chaser

That is probably not an intolerance for ambiguity, but is probably an intolerance for asking for a definition, because it is very annoying when people ask for a definition in order to create an unnecessary problem to waste time over. There's an important difference between being open-minded and being naive or a trouble maker. It is a problem when it distracts from bigger problems. It is a problem when we are no longer focusing on the philosophical problem, but are insteas arguing over whether someone can provide a definition, and whether they should or shouldn't, and whether it is "right". There are a number of situations where this might be appropriate, but the problem occurs when it is not so.

And all that is to say that he doesn't actually offer up an argument in support of his claim which contradicts that of Hume. Not even yet another regurgitation of Kant.

What I find interesting is that he is willing to entertain the thought that Hume was wrong about something or other, but not apparently Kant. Kant, it seems, was infallible. If the Word of Kant says nothing of the problem, 'tis no problem. So sayeth the prophet, Mww.

You've turned into an equivalent of the antinatalists with your obsessive, daily (if not more frequently) starting of threads that are all essentially arguing the same thing. — Terrapin Station

If you're having obsession problems I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems but a Devans ain't one.

You can't have an explanation for a phenomena which fails to account for its cause. — Devans99

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.