Give us an argument for why morality isn't emotion first and foremost. So far you've just offered hand waving.

It's what you do, not what you feel or think, that counts, isn't it? — Banno

Morality is about what we think and feel about what we do.

By looking to what we might do, we bypass the opacity of thinking and feeling, refocusing instead on our acts of volition, and how we might change things — Banno

So dismiss thinking and feeling and focus on what we do. This is a recipe for understanding morality?

The Torah, for example, provides the direction for everything — Hanover

Including infectious disease control. It's like a blueprint for a civilization in a little package.

And you are not born into an abyss. — Banno

:up:

Bootstrapping — Banno

A computer bootstraps from ROM. You're not a blank slate. Some things are innate, and brought out by experience.

Virtue ethics. Growth. — Banno

But how do you know which direction to grow in? An external set of rules? Or things you were born knowing (as in Meno's Paradox).

I was thinking more of Aristotle. — Banno

What was his view?

If it's something you're born with why do we have to teach children right from wrong? — Sam26

You can't teach a child right from wrong.

disagree. "Morality" develops over time, as one learns from and interacts with others. It's about becoming a better person - about developing values and virtues. — Banno

This is the ancient Jewish view, just substitute "interaction with others" with interaction with God's word. It has strengths and weaknesses like all views.

Well, yes, but it's more than that. It's not just my or your feelings here - we all agree that kicking puppies is not an honourable activity. Why? — Banno

Morality isn't a matter of public agreement. It's something you were born with. This is the Persian view. This is the problem with arguing with Christianity, it's got at least 4 different cultural perspectives on morality in it. Some of them directly conflict. This makes it a very dynamic and flexible religion.

So is believing "One ought not kick puppies" an act of faith? — Banno

No, it's a matter of feelings.

The command comes from the conviction or belief that kicking puppies is wrong. — Sam26

What do you mean by "wrong"?

We don't. That's kinda the point. — Banno

I agree.

You're saying morality rests upon a foundation of true statements. I think it's the other way around. Moral sensibility comes first. Statements are an after thought, and beyond specialized philosophical domains, they have no use. The command has use, so it's the command that's meaningful. — frank

My view is that the belief that kicking puppies is wrong isn't based on any justification, it's foundational like the rules of chess. It's a hinge. — Sam26

You're saying morality rests upon a foundation of true statements. I think it's the other way around. Moral sensibility comes first. Statements are an after thought, and beyond specialized philosophical domains, they have no use. The command has use, so it's the command that's meaningful.

One use is in teaching someone about right and wrong and how to treat other animals. I don't have to use the command when teaching — Sam26

I don't think you're catching my little argument. :blush:

as part of an inference. — Banno

From what reasoning did you infer that it's wrong to kick puppies?

Meaning is use. Of what use is asserting that "It's wrong to kick puppies" other than to say, "Don't kick puppies.". Tractatus.

So you are saying that it is not true that we ought not kick puppies? — Banno

No, I'm saying that commands aren't truth apt.

it is true that one ought not kick puppies; — Banno

This is the same as asserting that one ought not kick puppies. Asserting that is just another way to phrase the command, "Don't kick puppies."

And commands are not truth apt.

"Don't kick puppies for fun" is true — Banno

Commands aren't truth apt.

If someone disagrees with you about doctrine, we do not just have a disagreement. The other is a heretic and any means to change their tune are justified. If someone does not accept Christ, say, the difference is not just a difference, but justifies any means to convert them. Do I have to recount examples?
I'm not saying there are not non-religious examples of the same behaviour. Any radical conviction (faith) can be the basis violence and cruelty. — Ludwig V

Oh. But in the ancient world people usually respected foreign gods. If you visited a foreign town, you would first go pay respect to their gods and then go about your business.

Religious intolerance (the idea of false gods) came later. It's not so much about knowing divine will as believing that there is only one true divinity, which might be related to psychological integration.

There is a place for doubt as well as faith. — Banno

Can I quote you on that?

The conviction that one knows the will of God is the most dangerous religious belief of them all. — Ludwig V

Dangerous?

So you don't have faith in anything? Even in the human race?

Anyway, for Kierkegaard, faith is about accepting the world as it is, and accepting oneself in spite of being an asshole. The stories where God shows up as an asshole are pertinent. I like the fact that the Hebrew divinity has a dark side. There's less of a problem of evil, which Christianity has always struggled with.

If you're convinced that you're all good, how will you notice the signs that you're starting to turn into a Nazi due to bitterness or whatever. It's better to know that you're capable of becoming a monster so you can take steps to change course. You have to start with accepting that you have that dark side. Kierkegaard was right.

Nothing in that proposal implied self-sufficiency; quite the opposite. Interdependence leads to trust and a better quality of life.

But that is hard to explain to 'Mercans. — Banno

I think you're overlooking that ideals are pictures of what we want to be rather than what we are. It's the sheep-like culture that idealizes individuality. It's the independent minded people who prize self sacrifice for the community. To understand culture, look for the oppositions and contradictions.

We should "sacrifice what may be in your personal interest for... ...what preserves the social order"?

Fascism it is, then. — Banno

Isn't this Chinese morality?

The story of Noah is a garbled version of an episode out of the epic of Gilgamesh.

I saw quite a bit int he story, on which I have been expounding. — Banno

It was worthwhile then?

Or are these comments just designed to mitigate the discomfort of taking the story literally? — Banno

Kierkegaard saw something profound in it. You see nothing. If I see nothing in Guernica, does that say something about the painting? Or about me?

I was recently told by an 80 year old that it gets better every year. :grimace:

The law always tells you what to do. That's what a law is, what it does. — Fire Ologist

My point was that Hammurabi was both king and head of the national religion. He was seen as transmitting laws that originated with a Babylonian divinity. The very idea of law comes from religion.

Therefore Banno's comment that religion tells you what to do while science doesn't is just kind of naive about our religious heritage. Religion was pervasive social technology.

And as climate change sets in and civilization struggles to cope with the volatility, our ability to communicate who we are to the people who live 5000 years from now will probably come down to this ancient capability wrapped up in what we call religion.

Again, science does not tell us what to do. — Banno

The law tells you what to do. Our law is a descendant of religious law. All the stuff we have separated out was fused back then.

So what... — Banno

Did you think all the suffering and struggle was just the lead up to this glorious moment in the history of science? Guess which ancient religion, preserved in Christianity, that you got that idea from.

The science we have now is far beyond anything they considered. — Banno

So?

Science describes how things are, it doesn't tell you what to do about how things are. — Banno

Most of the global religions were the science of a former age, along with medicine, engineering, politics and history. We're just sporting around on the shoulders of those giants.

That's kind of what's happening with human speech. The part that generates speech is different from that part that listens and interprets, so you can understand a language you can't speak, or more rarely, speak bits of a language you can't understand .

I'm not even sure most people would be able to tell that's based on a dog. — flannel jesus

But that's what an AI did with a picture of a dog, so it has the potential to see almost anything in a set of lights and darks. What would it do if you ask it what it sees?

I'd like to know if it can identify something out of an abstract image because it can draw something we prompt.

For instance, this is based on a photo of a dog

That's cool. I get the most artistic results from giving the program a sentence that makes no sense along with a model image that's abstract.