@tim wood

Philosophy well done. As in all philosophy, subject to critique. — Mww

I agree. Good job.

Yeah, I guess I would agree my sense of morality has.....er, evolved.....since the 60’s. The “ought” becomes clearer when “fun” becomes “stupid”. — Mww

I still do “stupid” shit.

Morality is not taught, it is self-determined. What is taught is the actionable requirements of individual members consistent with a given social structure. Morality is the personal justification as to whether or not to so act, the ground from which *ought* statements arise, under certain necessary conditions. — Mww

Is this a fact? Because I see morality as more than just a “personal” justification. It is a collective justification determined by social pressures as well.

Humans *desire* socialization, they do not *need* it, as witnessed by homesteaders or “mountain men” in 1800’s American western frontier, “ronin” of feudal Japan, and any kind of social outcast. — Mww

This presupposes that people are not social creatures meant to cooperate in a society. I would argue that the outcasts or Ronin are deviants or have some sort of pathological illness.

All moral predicates are cognized, hence cannot be derived from feelings. — Mww

Is this also a fact? Why should people care about morality if they do not feel the pain of morally wrong behavior?

The only rational method for negating a feeling is with a principle, and a principle sufficient to negate a feeling absolutely must be undeniable, otherwise we can never justify our own morality. — Mww

This seems to me to be in contradiction to the previous quote. But maybe I misunderstand.

Morality, one of two fundamental human conditions, the other being reason, can never be given from examples, which merely demonstrate what morality may or may not do, but not what it is. — Mww

I was just illustrating how morality works, I think, not saying with the examples what it is.

My sole remaining vice. And the only one of all, I’d recommend, it’s only requisites being sufficient funds and proximity to a bathroom. — Mww

Well, if that’s your only vice, then you are a much more moral person than I am. I argue morality, but I don’t always follow it. I know what I should do. However, doing it is another matter.

MORE COFFEE!!!!!!!! — Mww

Fo sho :smile:

To me that seems like you're positing something additional to what I posit. Because on my view the relation in question is a property of the "associated" mental event. So I have the mental event, the referent, and the behavior (how the word or symbol is used). And you have all of those things plus a relation that's apparently something more than those three whatever-you-want-to-call-thems (I'd say "things" but people often seem to use "thing" in a technical way) — Terrapin Station

Well, we should note that I’ve never actually studied or read anything on meaning.

You're right, there is an equivocation in step 4 of my argument between experientially bad and morally bad. Should have spotted that. I concede. — Herg

Perhaps I will start having to give @S more credit. He’s good at philosophy.

Re shared meaning, for example, is your view that people are literally given meanings from others, kind of like you might hand a football to them, say, so that you share that same football with them? — Terrapin Station

No, I don’t think meaning is a thing. It’s a relation between the associated mental thought and the referent given how a word or symbol is used (I think).

I will have to re-read your post when I’m not so tired. Right now I am not able to comprehend it. I also don’t have the energy, concentration, or motivation to respond right now.

Perhaps “....impossible to speak of something not first mental”, would be a more favorable thesis — Mww

I agree.

If I assume my sense, then there's a giant logical gap between that as the antecedent, and no possible socialisation as the consequent, in the conditional of your very first premise. — S

In your view morality is about sentiments? If so, I disagree if that’s all there is to it, and I can see how you would not have socialization as the consequent. I believe in rationalism if by “innate knowledge” one means instinct. I believe in empiricism if one believes that the blank slate is a really complex and convoluted matrix that experience “writes on”. Moral sentiments are more than just feelings, though. One has to learn what one is feeling about. One learns through experience that pain is bad. It may also be instinctual or at least partly? Socialization (reports from elders or peers) teaches us that hitting someone causes pain in them, and this is reinforced when someone hits us and we feel pain. We learn through experience (also part of the socialization process) what pain feels like. In this way, we learn that hitting people unprovoked is bad. Now, you might feel that hitting someone unprovoked is satisfying, but socialization (reports from elders and peers that it causes pain) and experience should tell you it is bad. If with this you still feel that hitting someone unprovoked is good, then you are simply mistaken about a moral truth. It has nothing to do with what makes you feel good. It has everything to do with living in a community and not causing harm where possible. One should not harm community members when we depend on the community for survival, wants, and needs. If one harmed a community member unprovoked, then one should expect to be harmed in return. This is neither good for the individual (pain sucks), nor is it good for the community. One harm can lead to two. Two harms can lead to three, etc. Usually, the loved ones feel through empathy the harm done to the harmed party. This can lead to further aggression, and soon large parts of the community are at strife. This is not good for individuals or the community (remember how individuals rely on the community for survival, wants, and needs) because cooperation soon breaks down and it becomes more difficult to survive and satisfy wants and needs. I would then conclude that harming someone unprovoked is morally wrong. “Objectively” wrong. Whatever “objective” really means.

I will say more if you have objections or questions.

You are much more mature than I am in that I noticed you never let people antagonize you. I am also a very silly person as my wife and children know. That said, is it healthy to keep your emotions bottled up like that? Or do things really not bother you? Do you ever have nervous energy that needs to get out in a goofy or “immature” way? I would explode if I didn’t let the steam out.

I'm surprised more mature readers of this forum, haven't found solitude in "boredom"? Isn't that a sign that everything is proceeding well and such? — Wallows

When I’m just sitting with the radio on and thinking, I am usually not bored. Most people would find this boring, but I do it for many hours every day. Then again, I am capable of having conversations in my head. From what I gather, many many people don’t or can’t do this.

Or do you mean that the Allies were morally justified in fighting Hitler but other wars lacked moral justification?

For example, there was only one war with a Hitler. Most of the rest are nothing but moral ambiguities. — ZhouBoTong

I don’t know why you would say that other wars were “nothing but moral ambiguities”. But maybe you know more about the history of warfare than I do. For what it’s worth, Sun Tzu once said that no protracted war ever benefited a country. Were other wars not also evil? Sorry, “morally wrong”.

At least that’s what I got out of your use of the term “use”.

I think I might agree with you that the meaning OF “tree” is the relationship of how the word is used with the physical object it refers to.

Well, Noah I'm not sure how long you've been interested in philosophy, but this particular topic is not at all one that is simple to understand. — creativesoul

I never actually read anything on the topic of meaning, but I have interest in it.

What you call a “burger” is your perception of the matter consisting of what you ate. What it is like without a mind perceiving it cannot be conceived.
— Noah Te Stroete

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived.

Then you ask me a silly question like, "But what does it look like?", and I reproach you for asking a silly question like that.

That's usually how this goes, anyway. — S

What I should have said was that a burger is always perceived or thought about when spoken of. What it is like without a mind perceiving it or thinking about it (a mental picture for instance or the memory of its taste) is nonsensical. Matter is always either thought about or perceived when people speak about it. In this sense, it is impossible to speak of something extra-mental.

I suppose what I originally meant was that meaning is always meaning OF something, such as a word or phrase or sentence or symbol of some kind. The meaning OF “tree” is trees. Meaning is not a thing in itself. Meaning is a relation. Trees are not meaning, but the meaning OF “tree” is trees. I think this is what shared meaning is. This kind of relation.

Private meaning is the mental association I mentioned earlier.

I will have to give it more thought.

No. The association in the mind between the word “tree” and the thing, trees. How the word refers through this association is the meaning. In a sense “tree”’s meaning is trees but trees are not meaning.

The burger, when not being perceived, is like a burger, only one that is not being perceived. — S

Then it is being conceived. That also requires a mind.

Yes, and it’s meaning is what it refers to, viz. the plants with bark and leaves (or needles).

The term "tree" does not refer to meaning. — creativesoul

That’s clearly not what I said.

I don't care. You haven't given me any reason to. You're getting way ahead of yourself. My advice would be to slow down, try to regain relevance in relation to something I've actually said, and make explicit any key differences in interpretation. Otherwise this is going to be very unproductive, like my example in "Horses Are Cats". — S

I don’t know what else I can say. I thought I laid it out before you.

I have narrowed down the problem to your first premise. Either try to defend it or do not. The burden is with you, — S

As I said, morality is taught just as any other linguistic knowledge. Socialization teaches the shared moral norms of a society. Any other function of socialization is secondary to and meaningless without the teaching of morals.

Morality is taught just like any other form of linguistic knowledge. I don’t know how to prove that to you.

Only if you think that they're brute facts. Do you? Otherwise the burden is on you and you should stop making excuses. — S

I don’t know how to prove to you that we are social creatures sharing linguistic meaning other than ...

If morality came from the individual, then there would be no need for socialization.

Socialization ensures the smooth working of society.

Society is the necessary conclusion of social creatures with shared linguistic meaning and communication.

Followed by:

Society has the goal of survival and flourishing of the community.

In order for this survival and flourishing, moral laws must be formed.

Moral laws are also grounded in moral feeling.

That moral feeling has as its basis the avoidance of pain.

Moral laws dissuade the inflicting of pain, which also helps to ensure the survival and flourishing of society.

If moral laws didn’t exist, then society would not have lasted this long.

Society has lasted.

Hence, MORAL LAWS EXIST. — Noah Te Stroete

You begin with premises about society as if it is taken for granted that morality is all about society, which you know that I reject from the get go. — S

It seems we are at an impasse. I believe my premises are true. You don’t. Oh well.

The first premise is obviously false, so the argument is unsound. This is child's play. — S

Why is it false?

Who gives a fuck? The topic is morality. Say something relevant to the topic. — S

I added another premise followed by the conclusion.

Also:

Society is the necessary conclusion of social creatures with linguistic meaning and communication.

Society has the goal of survival and flourishing of the community.

In order for this survival and flourishing, moral laws must be formed.

Moral laws are also grounded in moral feeling.

That moral feeling has as its basis the avoidance of pain.

Moral laws dissuade the inflicting of pain, which also helps to ensure the survival and flourishing of society.

If moral laws didn’t exist, then society would not have lasted this long.

Society has lasted.

Hence, MORAL LAWS EXIST.

What about the rest of the argument?

Pain is bad. (a given)
Pain is instinctively avoided. (another given)
Causing pain in other people is bad. (from the first given, and the fact that we live in a society as social creatures)
Causing pain in other people should be avoided. (From the second given and the third premise)
Things that should be avoided are wrong.
Causing pain in other people is wrong.

intentionally performing an action whose effect is severe pain is causative of severe pain. — S

He didn’t say that. He is saying that the action is MORALLY wrong.

The lack of relevance is obvious if you swap "bad" for "immoral". — S

This has to be a category error or something fallacious. He isn’t saying that “pain is immoral”. He is saying that by our very nature, pain is something we instinctively avoid.

If morality came from the individual, there would be no need for socialization.
There is a need for socialization.
Thus, morality doesn’t come from the individual.

So then how is morality not of individuals? Are you positing some sort of communal mind? — Terrapin Station

Through shared meaning, communication, socialization.

It comes from a variety of sources. One is religious belief ('the gods have told us what to do, so we ought to do it'), another is social programming ('our leaders have told us what we should do, so we ought to do it'), and a third is the one I mentioned earlier, the recognition that pleasure is good and pain bad, and the entirely reasonable inference from this that we ought to promote pleasure and reduce pain. — Herg

I would argue that all of these except for pleasure and pain come from society. Pleasure and pain are the foundation of moral feeling I think. I said to S that both together are sufficient for the moral truths. As a descriptive moral relativist, I know that minds can differ on morality, but I am not a meta-ethical moral relativist. There are “objective” moral truths. Whatever “objective” means to people. Cold-blooded murder, rape, child molestation are all examples of morally wrong moral truths.