Try rewriting it with statements rather than rhetorical questions, reformat it - give headings or something. Drop the raping children examples and rewrite your points so they're more succinct. — Judaka

I think I'll take your advice. Thanks, this was the first time someone actually gave some useful advice, and AFTER reading it or attempting to read it.

17 days and not a whit of interest. Perhaps morality is not your thing. — praxis

Either that or morality is not other people's thing.

Morality begins with a set of guidelines or rules for how we should behave. — Judaka

There are two different set of guidelines by their inherent nature, and everyone in history has ignored that to date. Please read the paper if you wish to know how I view that.

well I don't want to get into any potential virtue signalling — Judaka

Why not saving your drowning child is a wholly different immoral action from viewing adultery as an immoral action is perfectly described in my utterly unread paper. You don't believe me, I know. Try reading it.

Doing what is in the best interest of others is where morality begins — Banno

Try defining "moral" with meaning something other than doing good for others or for the self. I will show you that there is no difference between doing moral and doing good, and therefore "moral" could be extracted from the discourse of philosophy and of social sciences, if it were not for the guilt and the pleasure generated by not doing or doing, respectively, that, which one feels one should.

It's all in the fucking paper, if you pardon my language.

god must be atheist explicitly commits the naturalistic fallacy — Banno

If you read my paper you'd maybe make a different derisive remark.

This remark here by you actually was not derisive. I sense you truly stated your honest opinion, which I appreciate.

However, I stand by my naturalistic -- well, fallacy, if you wish. I, of course, think it's not a fallacy, and I carry the naturalistic approach farther in the paper than most have. I may be mistaken, of course, as I don't read. Please read the paper and comment on it if you feel like it. If you care, please leave the comment on that thread. Thanks.

Morality is, for the most part, social leverage which seeks to control or confine behavior and thinking. Without the presence of others, say you had the planet all to yourself, where would morality or ethics manifest itself in your life? — Seditious

Morality is social leverage on one part, and an unavoidable behaviour response on the other. The two parts are so distant, that I separated them, as described in my paper. The paper can be found here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

If you have any comments to make on the points of that paper, please respond to it in that thread. Thanks.

As to why we should be moral: our trigger motivation is the expectancy of guilt. The formation of morality is evolution-driven. This is also shown in my paper, which is quite lengthy.

Justice or righteousness was central to Platonic thought. The Greeks even had a goddess for it: Δίκη or Dike. — Apollodorus

So that's why all the so-called just judgments were feminist rants against white, balding, overweight, privileged, middle-aged white men.

Poor Socrates, being judged by a bunch of rabidly feminist Justices.

The practice of dishing out and handling insults is supposedly good for one's ego, or for overcoming one's ego (it works both ways). — baker

From the point of view of the intended target of the insults, it may be a good opportunity to practice building ego-shields. Unfortunately the ability to raise ego-shield is a highly variable human trait: some can, some can't. High-ranking politicians normally have a high coefficient of this trait; children typically don't.

Teachers and educators in lower grades publicly shame name calling among children. This may be beneficial or not, I don't know. However, teachers are normally very empathetic creatures, so to them hurting another, especially when causing permanent psychological damage, is abhorrent.

Now I don't know what would be better: allow children to take natural revenge, or suppressing hurtful behaviour in its bud. Allowing children to take natural revenge may end up in murder and cannibalism, but hey, we're overpopulating the Earth already. Plus, the survivors of kindergarten sandboxes may be all much better adjusted psychologically, even to the point of being able to use beneficially all the functions of a smartphone or tablet.

I do not think that I am cornered. Is that what you intend? To corner me? — Fooloso4

Look: there are tons of thinkers in my life who are not like your calibre. I can take from a number of my friends, debating partners and acquaintances, that they genuinely misunderstand me or not understand me. From you, I don't think I should accept that. No, I don't want miracles from you, but you are more intelligent and more learned than I am, and therefore I sense (not know, but sense and I believe my gut feelings in those instances) that you are trying to slide out of giving me a straight answer, and you instead waffle or talk about irrelevant things.

Being a person I can look up to has its responsibilities as well as its privileges.

Questions about how we ought to live, on a personal, social, political, and geo-political level. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but you gave an insufficient answer. The task is not what the questions are; but how those questions elicit us to act in the absence of an answer. You have a very strong sense and incredibly strong command of ignoring my points when you are cornered.

Let me give you a simple, but perfect example why your answer here failed by being insufficient.

Son: "Daddy, should I wear the purple shoes, or the black shoes to school today?"
Daddy: he does not answer.
Son: he will wear the black or the purple shoes, but not because dad gave some guidance.

Humanity asks philosophy via asking philosophers: "Is there a god?"
Philosophers: Don't tell humanity, and admit they don't know the answer.
Humanity: will believe in god, or not, but NOT because philosophers gave them an answer as guidance.

Of course you will say humanity is many people, and this and that, and will completely ignore the thrust of my example. Be my guest, that will be the end of this part of the discussion.

I am saying that it is not possible to guide human behaviour by not answering questions, whereas you said in your quasi-definition, that that is part of philosophy.

I am sort of disappointed. I thought, Don Wade, that you are building up to and ontological argument: the seeds are there only if someone knows they are there.

But you are talking set theory. If set is inside another set, than is the inside-set a unit distinct form the container-set, or is it part of it?

We can't give you an example to show how we think about it, because you are quick to show examples we could show you, and you bring them up for us, and explain the example your way. So supplying an analogy is useless.

I think I had better capitulate to your thinking. My mother's baby, I, was not formed until I left my mother's womb. Therefore I did not exist then. Bang, abortions are all of a sudden okay, because the fetus is fully an organ or some innard of the mother.

So if you cut the mother in half, and you look at her red flesh, ... sorry, joke carried too far.

But I stand by the abortion thing. Many anti-abortionists say they oppose it because it's murder. But it's not... it's not murder if you remove an organ from a living body and it does not cause the body to die. Baby inside womb is a part of the mother, removing it is not murder.

Welcome to the forums, Sahrian.

Put differently, why should I care about another being in the next life? In what way have I been liberated from the cycle? — Fooloso4

I'm just jumpin' in, so I may say things that have been resolved already, so please I beg you to be patient with me.

There is something, according to reincarnation, that you share with some strange singular future being: your thing that reincarnates.

Whatever that thing is, is not operatively important to know its precise identity. There is a thing that gets transmitted to a new living being. That thing was in your body, and it is suggested that it owned your body.

It is true you have the reason to not care what the body's lot in life will be after the thing gets passed to him or her from you. But you don't focus on the body; it is not the body that gets to Nirvana, but the thing.

So you care not about the next body and its relationship with the thing, instead, you wish the thing will get to nirvana sooner than later, and therefore you do your part to expedite that. You do your part, and don't fret what other housers-providers do with the thing, because you have no control over that. (Recite the serenity prayer here.)

In the intervening three minutes I thought of a good answer to my own question to you, Fooloso4.

In the past everyone thought there was a god. So you did what you believed god wanted to you to do.

Now we question the existence of god. Its existence became a philosophical question.

Therefore we are not bound any more to behaviour that was tied to a god belief. We don't say our evening prayers, for instance, and we don't go to church.

Perhaps philosophy is not about solving problems but an awareness of them and figuring out how best to live and think given what we cannot answer. — Fooloso4

The awareness part: right on. I have problem with the second part.

So... given what we cannot answer... we can only live by those guidance that are answerable or not even question but a nominative truth.

For instance: Does god exist? I don't know. --- Ergo, you can't live your life to satisfy god, as you don't know the first thing about god, not even about its existence.

It is somewhat impossible to live your life by those standards, that are given by questions we don't have answers to.

Or what did you have in mind, Fooloso4? Can you give some examples, of how to live and think GIVEN what we can't answer?

:-) Funny.

It makes you a bibliophobe. See, that's how you make up new words, unlike the gibberish you put out. It's so pratotonic how you do that. — Hanover

Except it's not new.

bibliophobe in American English. (ˈbɪbliəˌfoub) a person who hates, fears, or distrusts books.

And the word does not describe my relationship to books. I don't hate them, fear them or distrust them. I just don't read them.

Conversely to the list above, there are philosophical questions now that hadn't used to be:

- what is consciousness? Soul?

- why do mirrors reverse left-right orientation, but not up-down orientation?

- is there a god, and if yes, what kind of thing is he or she?

- the morality of stock trading on the Internet

- if you sit a billion monkeys in front of billion typewriters, they will produce great works of literary art and stuff in a few years. (BTW, this has been disproved by the Internet.)

I Googled for a list of solved problems in philosophy, but nothing came up, so I guess there are none, or maybe Wiki is still assembling the list.
seconds ago — Hanover

Like Banno said, the solved philosophical questions have migrated into the realm of sciences. They are no longer philosophical questions, though they may have been that some time ago.

For instance: What creates wind?

Why do things fall down, instead of up?

How can the Earth be round and not have things fall off at the bottom?

How does the sun get around to the east again after setting in the west?

God lives in the country of heaven? (Sky, clouds.)

What makes the sun disappear on a clear day, with no clouds, for eight minutes or so, every few dozen years?

Why have the sun's coal reserved still not burnt out?

One should always read with defiance. Those who read in compliance are sheep I've always said. — Hanover

I don't read whatsoever. What does that make me to be? (PLEASE DON'T SAY IT.)

A neologism has to have a meaning. — Hanover

Please name your source to support your claim here.

One of the drugs given with anesthesia makes you forget what you may be aware of during surgery. There may be, to varying degrees, depending on the individual, some awareness of the surgical procedure. This is well documented in the medical literature and is the reason drugs are administered to make you forget. — Fooloso4

The did not give me enough of the "forget me" drug.

Back eight years ago or so, when I was grossly overweight, I had to undergo a proctologist's exam. They kept pumping anesthetic into me intravenously, but not the full dose. It is known that the fat tissue in the body takes up the anesthetic, and releases it, so they may have fried my brain in the process if they gave me the dose I required. So I was under-anesthysized.

I screamed through the whole procedure. I don't remember any pain (the forget-me drug was effective in that), but I did register during, and remembered after the procedure, hearing myself scream loudly.

The doctor came to my bedside after the process, while I recuperated, and explained what had happened.

I just wonder what the other patients in the waiting room thought about that.

You don't expect him/her to know that, do you? — Apollodorus

I am sorry. He/she asked. I gave an explanation. What else would YOU do if you are asked a straight question but give a perfectly straight answer? Your solution to this dilemma would be what?

They already believe in God and they agree with the two commandments. That's good enough to me. — Apollodorus

Nice cop-out. Well done. You'll never get Christianity reversed from its decline with a placid argument or opinion or value like that. And that was the goal you expressed you wish for, to reverse the decline of Christianity. So which is it? to reverse the decline of Christianity, or is it to leave it progress in its decline?

“Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” – John 1:49. — Apollodorus

That's what Nathaniel said, not Jesus. Your charge was that Jesus never spake of himself that he is the son of god. You said, that's wrong, and you quoted John 1:49. The keen observer, which you are not, will spot that this was not an utterance by Jesus. Your counter-argument fails.

What makes you think that's a problem? — Apollodorus

So, I ask you: do you want to see Muslims and Jews converted to Christianity, or not?

(Beware, either way you answer, there is already quotes by you that deny this or that of your proposition if you answer this simple question.)

I've no idea what you're talking about. — Apollodorus

Because you don't read your own posts. I do. And many others. More and more and more you contradict your own self, and you are oblivious to it because you don't know what you said just five minutes ago.

Read Fooloso4's last post. You completely destroyed your own arguments and your massive ignorance in the topic of your own faith was thrown in your face -- you are oblivious to it, because nothing can penetrate your ill logic. You are a bastion, and an impenetrable fortress by means of showing you logic and how you are wrong in most of your claims.

What do these underlined words mean? — Hanover

They are neologisms. They are the newest craze in literary, in philosophizing, and in literate philosophizing circles. Creating words that sound plausibly like semantically correct words, but are not. This is the newest trend in the literature of philosophy.

Plus, most religions would accept the truth of the two commandments without needing to "convert" to anything. — Apollodorus

So... is this going to strengthen Christianity? Let's not lose focus, when I spake of proselytization I referred directly to your idea, that had to do with the decline of Christianity. Here's the quote that I've been referring to all this time:

I think the decline of Christianity in the Western World can only be reversed by the correct "reinterpretation" or "reconsideration" of these two central commandments which together have always formed the very foundation of the Christian Faith. — Apollodorus

So... Muslims and Jews are strong supporters of Christianity, according to you, because they do accept the truth of the two commandments without needing to "Convert" to anything.

Good going, Apollodorus; strengthen Christianity by allowing the validity of the Jewish and Muslim faiths. They don't need converting. They are good enough Christians, these Jews and Muslims, without converting, with being devoted Muslims and Jews.

The hair stands on end hearing your insanely misapprocated, unrelentingly non-introceptive, and altogether parapleptocal arguments.

I think the only problem in this argumentation that you carry on is that you read only what others write, and not your own posts.

Your belief is one thing. — Apollodorus

And your belief is just one other thing. Your belief is just a thing. Your thing. It has to do only with you. It's a thing, your belief is. Whether it's in God or whatever else, it's nothing but just a thing.

Plus, nobody was talking about "presenting Christianity to atheists and agnostics". — Apollodorus

So... what were you thinking of, when you spake of "reversing the declining of Christianity?" Making the Christians more Christian than they are? I don't believe that. I believe you were talking proselytization. So... whom do you want to proselytize, if not the heathen? That is the question.

I doubt there would be any need for that as many seem to have already been lobotomized by Covid-19 and by reading too many Marxist fairy tales. The number of Christians in Marxist societies like China is certainly growing by the day. — Apollodorus

If they had been lobotomized, then and only then it is understandable that Christians grow in numbers. You just proved my point: Steps to take, in this order: 1. Lobotomize communists. 2. Convert them to Christianity.

My apologies for giving the impression that I skimmed your reply. But thanks for writing that indeed you skimmed it due to your impression that it was thin in worthwhile reading.

My paper presents a brand new way of looking at morality, by completely separating what I called in the paper involuntary morality and learned morality. No text to my knowledge before separated the two and pointed out the similarities and the differences. The similarities and differences I described are constants.

To charge that I did not do my research, is understandable, as it was an expectation by you that was not fulfilled, like I said earlier, but it is not necessary to the kernel topic of the paper. The only research that was necessary was to say that this concept has not been thought of before. No more reference is needed.

What got me upset, was your charge that I messed up the evolutionary aspect. Evolution (species separation) occurs on localized differences of survival options that adaptations favour, and adaptations develop by random mutations, but evolution also occurs by the survival of the fittest. The fitter the society's survival capabilities, the more likely it is to survive. And if the components (denizens, humans) of a society all have a certain mutation that carries this survival advantage forward, then the mutated DNA is more ready to spread and be transmitted to future generations than those society's members' DNAs that don't have the mutation. This is so when the two groups need to fight for a scarce resource that is needed for survival, and there is not enough of the resource to support the survival of all competing groups.

This is essential to understanding evolutionary theory. To misrepresent this as a Lamarck's type of "wishing to mutate" is what hurt me. I did not think, still don't think, that that interpretation was warranted.

I did not spell out this mutation part in the paper, because I assumed that readers would connect the dots themselves easily -- between the role of mutation in my theory, and my theory. Not in my wildest dreams would I have thought that there would be someone who understands my claims as needing support from Lamarck's version.

Thanks for reading my paper, and giving it proper thought. I really appreciate it.

I admit, I don't understand some of your criticism. When I say I don't understand it, I don't mean I disagree with it; I literally don't understand some of your objections. It is written in unfinished sentences, in incomplete sentences, in syntactically incorrect sentences ("because you don't being any substance to the table with this essay..") and using jargon I don't possess knowledge about.

I bow to your superior background to mine in philosophy.

A few words on what I understand:

3. Whether or not ethics has been defined or conceptualized to your satisfaction is irrelevant and it's patently false to claim that it's never been adequately defined or conceptualized. Consensus on moral questions or ethics as concept is, like all other areas of philosophy or even philosophy itself, is not required; thus, the fruitful prevalence of dialectical and hermeneutical methods, among others.

It is not irrelevant; it is precisely the kernel topic of my paper. You dismiss its relevance, which I aim to prove in the paper; and of course you will find my paper meaningless, since you dismiss its major thrust ab ovo. Consensus is not required; but if a proven solution is found, then consensus follows automatically.

What about moral agency? The essay mentions only 'moral rules' & 'moral behavior / acts' which is not the comprehensive account as you apparently think it is without also considering moral agency. My own treatment of ethics is agency-based (i.e. eudaimonist) and very much in the traditions of and inspired by e.g. Confucians, Epicureans, Stoics, ... Pragmatists, et al (i.e. "virtue ethics").

My paper does not consider Moral Agency because Moral Agency is irrelevant to the topic. You insist, maybe, because of your bias of looking at morality? Well, this paper is about a different angle of morality. I obviously failed as a writer to make you see my point or points -- I don't blame you, I blame my inferior writing skills to get the points across. Or else maybe you sought old, rehashed, and repeated ideas repeated again, and were incredulous, because you found none. A brand new concept normally encounters huge resistance for acceptance in the community. One of the reasons is precisely that expectations of the readers are not fulfilled by the presentation of new ideas. A paper about morality is null and void without mentioning moral agency, because that is your favourite approach, as you have said it so clearly in your criticism. A different reader may want to see something different, but also old and re-hashed over and over again, something that they are familiar with, and have rehashed in their minds, and can take sides on and argue it well. The lack of the mention of moral agency is something that PERHAPS bothers you because you expected it to be there, and you don't quite say why it is needed, or why its absence destroys the paper... I believe (don't know, but beleive), that your expectation is not met, that's the only problem. The paper makes sense without integrating moral agency.

2. "Innatism" just begs the question and is inconsistent with the natural selection of adaptive traits or the cognitive behavioral phenomenon of habituation. Your thesis completely fails on this account.

Habituation is NOT the only driving force of natural selection. What you are saying is a huge admission to ignorance about natural selection and evolution. Of course my thesis fails on this account, as this account you insist on is part of neo-Darwinism, but not the only type of criteria that is part of the evolutionary mechanism. And I actually never mentioned such a thing as "innatism".

1. Empirical assertions abound without much, if any, warrant. References to findings from moral psychology (or maybe even behavioral economics) are the kind of evidentiary support such broad claims about human nature / behavior require if you expect them to be taken seriously.

This is something where you hit the nail on the head. My paper reeks of insufficient academic background and lacks in referencing. However, you yourself said in one of the points, that consensus is non-existent and not required. I beg to ask: why then the insistence on comparison to established (and accepted) theories? Consensus is either there, or not, If there, then yes, I need to relate my theory to past theories. But consensus is not required. Therefore I claim I have not failed on this portion of the paper, but I agree with you: because of the lack of referencing, though logically not important to integrate, again fails to satisfy those who want to read that material that they have read a thousand times in a thousand books, and they very much expect to see the re-hashed ideas getting re-hashed again. Again, I fail because of the bias of expectations, not because of the logical mechanism of explaining my point.

----------------------------

I do admit I do have insurmountable difficulties in this paper. Its main idea is maverick, original, and I believe it's right on the button. However, the community is resistant -- that is not only expected, it is a natural law. I can't overcome the resistance of the community unless I put my idea into a form that meets their expectations... and that is not something I can do.

I believe you skimmed over my paper, and not read it to internalize its points, 180 Proof. My claim that you handled it superficially is not a factual claim, but a description of my gut feelings. Some of your criticism was valid, but you invalidated your own valid points (think consensus and its requirement, vis-a-vis referencing). Some of your criticism was ill gotten (your remarks about habituation). Some of your criticism was irrelevant (by expressing the need to read what you expected to read). And none of the critical reasons had to do with the meaning of the paper. Your criticism only referenced the premises of my argument, and you believed you proved my premises wrong. You tried to invalidate the assertions on which my discussion was built; and therefore you did not bother with reading the argument in it and its conclusion. That is understandable, should your criticism have stood ground. But it did not.

an element of us wanting to feel better about ourselves so we put the good in some otherworldy domain — Manuel

Yes, I agree, and I'd call it "hope"; to hope that our future is nice is easier to do if the person who decides on it is good.

I'll get back to you with a considered response if your article warrants it. — 180 Proof

Wonderful to hear that. Thanks.

Okay. I accept that you say that, but i don't think you think that. You are too smart to not see it, and I am too smart to know you are too smart to not see it.

Nevertheless, I won't argue, for a number of PERSONAL reasons. Let me just say this: you are not counter-arguing, you are just negating by uttering negatory responses to my claims. You don't typically supply evidence when countering my points, whereas with all other people you argue with here, you do. And this is not the first time you do this while debating with me. The best you can do to argue against my points are presuppositions, and not hard, irrefutable arguments.

This leads me to thoughts of personal opinions that make it advisable to not always respond to your counter arguments, such as they are. I will still engage with you in debates, but won't carry it beyond the point when you use presuppositions, without providing solid arguments, at least as I see them to be.

Ethics, like the rest of philosophy, is a performative exercise (reflection, contemplation) and not a propositional discourse (theoretical explanation), so it's inherently interminable, perhaps occasionally converging (by processes of eliminating patent nonsense and falsehoods) but never converging upon settled-once-and-for-all-positions. We're Sisyphusean rodeo clowns striving, at best, for better questions, Fool, not scientists with lab results or self-help gurus pimping fortune cookie (perennial) answers. Why ethics continues to preoccupy so many philosophers? — 180 Proof

If any one of you, 180 Proof, Tom Storm, et al, CARED to read my very long post, an article no publisher of philosophy would even look at, you would not say this.

It is still on this site, for anyone to see and read. Unfortunately it is very long, because the purpose originally was to publish it in a magazine that is peer-reviewed.

Please don't hesitate to read it.

You can see it on this site, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

I never understood why and the answers given seemed evasive. — Manuel

In my thoughts I had explained that very well. Never verbalized it or written it down. Here it is, for the first time:

God was first (whether a singular monodeity, or a pluralistic deity) attributed with human qualities: anger, evil, goodness, compassion, brains, stupid decisions, etc.

Concurrently, people prayed to their gods for favours. People paid sacrifices to their gods.

Then they figured, "maybe god (the particular god(s) they worshipped) does not like being called stupid, inconsiderate, a rapist. (Zeus and Jupiter.) Maybe he will grant more favours if I praise him more, and berate him less."

After a while the berating declined, and the putting on pedestal accelerated. This became a trend; then a competition. The sections "proverbs" and "psalms" are full of quotes that supply evidence for this trend.

Eventually god, THE god, became all-powerful, by getting praise, and all-good, due to not wishing to insult him, and all-forgiving and infinitely merciful, despite the billions of souls who burn in hell in incredible pain for all eternity.

There was no turning back. After God garnered an all-encompassing capitulation to his power by accelerated sucking up to him, people became stuck in the calling him good, merciful, powerful and sometimes angry.

But then some smart-alecs like a whole number of us on this forums, started to think, "hey, how is this possible?" It is not possible. It is the end process of kiss-ass to the limit of its possibility, and the ensuing logical self-contradictions.

True.