Moral feelings are those about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Moral thought... the same. Moral belief... the same. Moral discourse... the same. — creativesoul

I would argue that the categories of morality each pertain to distinct aspects. If nothing else, moral thought/belief is predominantly developed within the constraints of reason; whereas moral feeling disregards reason (in a sense) and is arrived at by an irrational commitment to the good.

I qualified the statement with other's awareness, because people commonly feel guilty about things they have done that no one knows about, if they think that others would find the behavior reprehensible. — Janus

This is a good chance to point out that the deeper the feeling of conviction over a moral thought/belief, the more personal it seems to become. It is reasonable to assume, at certain level, that the individual makes ethical judgments due to the obligation of personal duty, as opposed to any obligatory social norms.

@Janus

Certainly. Our moral feelings are informed by language use. — creativesoul

Moral beliefs are certainly informed by language. But, it would seem that moral feelings are a deeper matter. A moral feeling is not simply some capricious attitude formulated by reason, rather, it is a deeply personal conviction that is not always receptive to the notion of opposing moral beliefs.

It's possible to say whatever we want. Is it helpful? Good/evil are a couple of days too old, ya know? There are way too many religious connotations and/or theistic baggage for my tastes. Surely we can do ethics in better ways without depending upon such unwarranted belief systems setting the stage for us, can't we?

That's the whole point of setting out the universal common denominators. Ethics begins when we start considering others. — creativesoul

I was only speaking poetically. Oops

This includes those who had such thoughts long before language acquisition, and everyone after. The sadomasochist will still agree that they do not like being harmed by another despite being sexually aroused by some experiencing some forms of pain. They do not consider all pain as harmful, nor do I despite my distaste for painful sexual experiences. — creativesoul

It may be that physical harm and ethical harm differ qualitatively, and while it is possible for them to correlate in some way or another, it is not necessary. They each maintain their sense independent of the other.

The origen of morals must include both, one's adopted morality via indoctrination and one's own pre-linguistic thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. — creativesoul

Indeed, the indoctrination and ethical assimilation into culture, combined with one's enduring pre-linguistic assessments of the desirable, adequately set the stage for the moral agent to appear. Somewhere in this dynamic comes, what I like to call "the original sin": the knowledge of good and evil. The role of the moral agent is most decisive in the transition from ethical becoming to ethical being. Is it, then, possible to say that the "source of morals" can be included under the category of becoming, and "existing morals" under the category of being.

Prior to ethical existence, there are many accidental factors that come into play. But once I have assumed the ethically deliberative consciousness, all meaning comes through my decisiveness. I no longer am concerned about my level of conformity to cultural norms, nor about my relation to the desirable. In ethical existence, I am no longer focused outward on the world: as it seems to be, and as it should be; rather, I turn inwardly towards myself: as I seem to be, and as I should be. For instance there is a sharp distinction between: the world is a scary place, it should be a peaceful place and I am afraid, I should be brave.

That's a nice piece of writing. It's a bit too flowery for my disciplinary taste/preference in philosophy(critical and analytic), but the sheer aesthetic value is very much appreciated. The affects of my reading it were visceral. — creativesoul

"visceral" :lol: . Thank you. I know it's not the most popular philosophical form in this day and age. So, I appreciate that you have the philosophical versatility to look beyond my unfettered lexicon.

And, floweriness is a very apt description of my philosophy: for I intended to plant my ideas, cultivate and grow them, and finally watch them die.

I have no issue at all with that criterion for what counts as ethical existence. I only balk at the 'accidental' aspect, but would readily accept that too, if you're saying that the indoctrination of culture - as a thing in and of itself - emerged independently of any and all conscious deliberative purpose and prior to our awareness that it was happening.

That would place in squarely in the domain of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our account of it. — creativesoul

This is my meaning.

I would argue that this pre-existing entity, although only quasi-ethical (due to its inability for conscious deliberation) provides the necessary environment to cultivate proper ethical existence (qua. conscious deliberation of the moral agent).

I would say that the ethical doesn't actually exist until responsibility is assumed by a deciding agent (no matter how insignificant or illusory). But it is not the responsibility that places one into ethical existence, rather it is the acceptance of the role as the deciding agent that places one there. — Merkwurdichliebe

If A does not exist until B and B is insufficient for A then A is existentially dependent upon more than just B. If C results in A without B then A is existentially dependent upon C and we've arrived at self contradiction with the first premiss. — creativesoul

Permit me to put this logic into the terms of the discussion. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

1) If the ethical (A) does not exist prior to cultural indoctrination (B), and cultural indoctrination is insufficient for the ethical, then the ethical is dependent upon more than just cultural indoctrination.
2) if moral agency results in the ethical without cultural indoctrination, then the ethical is existentially dependent on moral agency, and this contradicts the first premise.

You are correct. It definitely requires a closer look and some rethinking.

Either the first premiss is false, or there's an equivocation of "ethical" such that "the ethical doesn't actually exist" is not talking about ethical existence. — creativesoul

That was a very confusing use of language on my part. Let me restate it.

Perhaps it would have been better to say:
"the ethical only exists as a potentiality, until direct responsibility is assumed by a moral agent (no matter how insignificant or illusory the agent)."

Here, it is possible to conceive of the ethical as coming into being through cultural indoctrination. In becoming, the ethical is presupposed in cultural indoctrination, but until the ethical manifests itself in the live decision of moral agency, it is in a necessarily latent mode, which is quasi-ethical (or the ethical as concept), and not ethical existence proper (as moral being).

However, if you mean to direct our attention to the importance that conscious deliberation of one's own (mostly)adopted worldview(including the inculcation aspect of morals) has upon one's moral character, then you'll receive nothing but complete and total agreement from me.

I was going to ask about "ethical existence" but you've answered while I was still formulating this reply. That's an interesting position to put forth. I'm going to carefully consider what I think it means prior to saying more. — creativesoul

You have set forth a common goal. I will do the same. :up:

So in that sense, morality is the tool used for cultural indoctrination. — creativesoul

I would argue that the indoctrination of culture is value charged with a preexisting morality, but the problem is that it is entirely accidental. There is no possibility of decision here. I would say that the ethical doesn't actually exist until responsibility is assumed by a deciding agent (no matter how insignificant or illusory). But it is not the responsibility that places one into ethical existence, rather it is the acceptance of the role as the deciding agent that places one there. The ethical, as it were, circles back upon the individual through culture, and places him into an immediate relation to the decision - it is an existential tier above that of primitive thought/belief and basic reflective assessments of one's experience.

You are correct in this point. Just consider me thorough. I just want to be sure we have firmly arrived into ethical existence before we finally determine that we have exhausted all the relevant potential sources of moraliy.

Morals consist of thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. They are the basis for morality. They vary according to cultural and/or familial particulars.

This is true of all morals. We agree here don't we? — creativesoul

Indeed.

I feel we have made progress in a way that is rarely seen on TPF (add. as insignificant as it might be).

I cannot see how morality comes prior to cultural indoctrination. And in fact, I cannot see the arrival to ethical existence prior to the ability of the individual to separate herself from the culture into which she has been indoctrinated (even if, at that point, she chose to abide with the cultural indoctrination).

This is just my hypothesis.

Anyway, let's circle back to the moral thought/belief aspect. Particularly, I think that the role of language in moral thought/belief could be set out further. — creativesoul

I'm following.

We can agree that culture consists of many individuals' thought/belief, can't we? — creativesoul

I can agree upon that. Let's leave the individual's influence on culture on the margin for now, may become relevant later.

Sports Illustrated has been officially lame for decades.

Hmmmmm...I dont know if culture is so much , determined by individuals, as much as that it is determined by an intentional conformity to the interests of the culture.

(Add. I would call such intentionality non moral, or one factor in the source of morals)

Culture is existentially dependent upon individual thought/belief. — creativesoul

I don't necessarily agree. I believe it is an entity beyond the individual. Just try to change culture through your purest conviction. Won't happen, not like a conviction could change your personal belief.

More likely, culture will change your individual convictions.

The last statement seems to be claiming or at least has the consequence of claiming that all evaluations of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture, and not as a result of the primitive thought/belief. — creativesoul

I would amend this position by assuming that it isn't so universal. That is, not all evaluation of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture. But I might argue that the most significant which carry through to maturity are, indeed.

Why, of cours3!!!

@creativesoul

Let us approach it as a live dialectic, a proven methodology, you ask the questions and I will answer. It is an experiment, so it won't be emotionally charged. We can assume our role in the context of experiment, and discourse therefrom.

Yes I do

@creativesoul

This is the best time to disagree. — Merkwurdichliebe

Seriously, it's not just a joke.

We are on same page, same sentence. — Merkwurdichliebe

This is the best time to disagree.

We are on same page, same sentence.

I'll not get into the negation. Thanks for taking the time to set it out. — creativesoul

Np. It's flatulence.

If all minds are existentially dependent upon thought/belief, then we better make sure that we have thought/belief right.

So... it's the method of approach that matters. What steps do we take, which things ought we consider, what can we know and how can we know it when it comes to thought and belief itself? Are thought and belief things? What sorts of things could they be? Do they exist? Are they real? In what way do they exist. How can we establish some sound foundation? — creativesoul

Ok. Let's get back on topic. We only need to satisfy those categories insofar as they satisfy us, and I think you and I both know that my indirect, flanking strateegery will not permit for any nonsense, as it is completely responsive to the creative and the originally derived.

By not saying it? — creativesoul

:lol:

It is of utmost importance for it is the measure of all things further considered when one is using a framework resting it's laurels upon that dichotomy. — creativesoul

How can we avert the Notion of: man as the measure of all things?

It's an aside, but I'm dying to know...

Can you demonstrate such a negation of the law of contradiction? — creativesoul

Glad to oblige (I find it to be a fascinating topic).

The short answer:

In the dialectical methodology, logic is not static and finite, but is in infinite motion which subsumes all potential necessity in every possible variant (of a logical system).

I will attempt to describe the basic dialectical sense. Any relation of "+A" to "-A" withdraws into the unity of "A" (as Hegel pointed out). If "A" becomes contextualized in a snapshot of propositional form (viz. as a logical relation concerning "+A", or "-A"), then it is impossible to factor "A" through the true/false dichotomy without depredating the proposition of all sense (it is analogous to using thought/belief to pin down thinking). In this sense, contradiction only occurs within the content of a proposition, and never within the defining contextual subtext (from where propositional sense is derived).

The law of contradiction, then, can be regarded as an apparatus that does not negate its opposite (by making it something else), but by necessarily defining its essence (as the antithetically opposed reflection within a rationally motivated schematic). In the dialectical approach, "+A"/"-A" does not gain its propositional sense from the contrary "-A"/"+A" (a tautological assumption), rather, from the contradictory "not 'A'"/"not '-A". Hence, the law of contradiction (that a thing cannot be simultaneously true and false, but must be one or the other) is negated by the fact that contradiction is logically precluded by necessity.
That is, within the sense of any proposition, the "either/or" does not matter since the contradictory (negative) term essentially establishes the positive existence of the interrogative object within the propositional context.

It's very stupid. :rofl:

(Add. I could care less, but, imo, theists would be wise to pursue this thread if they intend on arguing with atheists.)

I’m not a believer in robot saviors-servents either. Not that I think robots will turn into Terminators. It’s the ones pulling their strings, the man behind the curtain, that is more worrying. — 0 thru 9

It's the human robots that you gotta be real scared of.

Perhaps the good of our existence is found in chasing awareness and interconnectedness, and in fulfilling the overall potential of the universe. We should then choose to find value in the way our lives intertwine with everything else, and how our own potential is broadened in the awareness and fulfilment of a universal potentiality: the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed as a whole. — Possibility

Everything up to "the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed as a whole".

At this point, if everyone had proceeded into their "own potential [...] broadened in the awareness and fulfilment of a universal potentiality", then bellum omnium contra omnes would be a paradise-in-the-flesh.

I think this thread would've got more hits if it was titled: Marijuana for Philosophy .

Right?

Thank God for the free world.

There are some studies linking cannabis use with an intensification of social anxiety by the very use of the drug, which is one of the reasons I don't smoke it anymore. — Wallows

I'm all for social anxiety. If everyone in society smoked the fine herbals, and it amplified their anxiety, they would be forced to live with it, or deal with it. But that would also mean they couldn't resort to the big pharma drug lords with all their demonic poison. I think everyone would chill out, man.

All thought/belief (all correlation) presupposes the existence of it's own content(regardless of subsequent further qualification). — creativesoul

Haha...nice!

The presupposition of correspondence to actual events happens prior to language. — creativesoul

Would you say such a presupposition is more a matter of immediate instinct/intuition, or rational reflection/deliberation?

The presupposition of correspondence to actual events happens prior to language. — creativesoul

If the attribution of meaning happens prior to language, then any and all positions arriving at and/or relying upon the contrary are wrong in a very specific sort of way. — creativesoul

This is a very important point.

In basic terms, for the primitive human, the world has meaning in one particular or another. The introduction of language adds an entirely new dimension to the equation - a rational dimension. I, might argue, that ethical existence is not entered upon until (at least, but probably well after) the rational conscioussness is initiated through exposure to language.

We also find that the most relevant languages are not only historic, but contain historically embedded values that are determined by a completely separate dynamic, which lies far beyond the dynamic that determines primitive valuations; it is obviously more closely related to basic revaluations.

Again, it's switching to "what is it that changes focal lengths?" so that we're suddenly talking about cameras qua cameras instead. — Terrapin Station

No, you are right...

Cameras freeze three dimensional fields of color onto two dimensional a surface.

...so, yes, you are wrong.

Don't mind that, I was just feeling out my present interlocutor - you.

I wouldn't call the common core of all thought/belief 'primitive morality'. Primitive thought/belief? Sure. Not all thought/belief is rightfully called "morality". Rather, morality is codified thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour(thought/belief that is moral in kind).

Morality is codified moral belief. Laws. — creativesoul

No dispute, here. I just meant to clarify your position. I would say, if there is a primitive morality, it comes well after primitive thought/belief. Hopefully we can discover approximately where that occurs.

You and I both know that the position I'm arguing for rings true in a multitude of ways and has the broadest possible scope of rightful application(s). Don't we? — creativesoul

Indeed! You arrogant sunuvabitch. :joke:

creativesoul

You are a writing machine.

A blank slate overstates the case. — creativesoul

I admit, it is a poor choice of words, but you get what I mean.

If we must speak in terms of a priori and a posteriori, then I suppose the above makes a fair point. However, I personally reject that framework as a result of it's inherent inadequacy. In fact, I reject all historical philosophical metaphysical frameworks for the very same reason. They are all based upon dichotomies such as subject/object, mental/physical, internal/external, subjective/objective, and others. None of these dichotomies can coherently arrive at a framework capable of taking proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither. Thought/belief is one such thing. — creativesoul

The a priori/a posterior distinction has its merits in explaining some things, but I certainly don't mean to restrict the conversation to that system, (only where relevant). And you are correct to reject any historical philosophical metaphysical frameworks.

I don't believe any philosophical framework aptly takes into account any of those metaphysical dichotomies which "consist of both, and are thus... neither". The only framework that comes close, is the dialectical one, which includes movement/transition into its logic, allowing it to essentially negate the law of contradiction.

However, I don't see how we can avoid beginning at an unverifiable metaphysical premise. The necessary abstraction of concepts inevitably places us on metaphysical ground. I don't know how it is possible to nullify this problem (in totality) through any methodology.

As I see it, we are left with two choices: to keep trying to metholologically locate a non-metaphysical premise from which we can proceed with absolute certaity; or to simply accept a metaphysical premise as self-evident, and proceed methodologically to investigate its consequence. The latter is obviously naive; but the former requires blind faith in a methodology that will only have proved itself, once it has indisputably proven itself. The only other way to validate a methodology is to test it by another method. What independent method could we use to determine the effectiveness of our methodology here (not that we actually have one)? It would seem to require another method to determine that methodology . . . ad infinitum.

All explanations of thought/belief are themselves existentially dependent upon pre-existing thought/belief. That is to say that all explanations of thought/belief are metacognitive endeavors(they require thinking about thought/belief). Thought/belief cannot be pointed at. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. So, unlike thinking about physically perceptible things, thinking about thought/belief requires quite a bit more than just brains/nervous systems replete with physiological sensory perception and the innate ability to experience the effects/affects of basic emotion(contentment/discontentment/fear). — creativesoul

Nice point, possibly something to build upon. I'll try not to get too excited and jump the gun.

Emotional affection, at the physiological level, corresponds directly to the behavioral disposition of desire/aversion. But, at this point, I can not say whether that the valuation of behavioral disposition marks a transition into the ethical, or, rather, stands as merely an aesthetic assessment of what seems most conducive to attaining the desirable.

Consider, that early in life, the infant begins to evaluate the desirable somewhere in the interplay of her nerve stimuli, and her emotional responses. As primitive as it is, this does constitute a valuation, despite the absence of any language skills. The primitive level in which value is imposed on emotional affection does not constitute a proper ethical judgement - it is more like an observation of what seems pleasing to me, rather than a moral choice about what I ought to do.

Then we can think about the toddler who has begun to acquire language. At this point, he is being linguistically conditioned (with some corporal conditioning) so that he can be assimilated into the culture to which he belongs. It is somewhere in this process that the evaluation of his primitive valuations commences; most importantly any evaluations of his primitive valuations are primarily acquired externally from culture, and not internally as a result of primitive valuation.

I hope this takes us one step closer to adequately understanding the source of morals. I could be mistaken, it's a terrible tragedy.


I would also add: thinking about thought/belief suffers from something analogous to the "observer effect" in physics.

It does not draw and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. I — creativesoul

You said it. If only thinking were not so indefinitely fluid - infinite, as it were. Perhaps, then, we could approach the topic of thinking about thought/belief in a direct manner. But, as it is, we cannot directly communicate actual thinking, and thusly, we can do nothing but approach it indirectly - as thought/belief about thought/belief.

the point I've been pushing up a cliff in this thread, is that breaking the law is immoral; — tim wood

It is only immoral in the eyes of the state. This does not necessarily hold true to the opponent of state law. A criminal has every right to consider it his ethical duty to break the law.

But, the greatest problem with regarding state law as the ultimate authority on good and evil, is that it validates the moral right of tyrannies like the Soviets or Nazis. If state law is morally right, then it is impossible to argue that the holocaust and red terror were evil.

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but if illegality equates to immorality, then the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to determining good and evil. Fascism, to me, is a very dangerous prospect.