Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder? — Patterner

No.

Intuitively doing something that makes sense

Sometimes people do things intuitively because it makes sense at the time. Sometimes these acts are intuitive, such as giving up a well paid job or starting to take a particular drug. It may not be possible to put their reasons into words, other than the feeling that it is the right thing to do.

Sometimes these acts are beneficial, such as finding another job that is even better paid, and sometime these acts are detrimental, such as in becoming an addict.

The consequence of an intuitive act is only known subsequently. The consequence of an intuitive act that makes sense at the time can only be known subsequent to the act. Sometimes it may be beneficial and sometimes it may be detrimental. With hindsight, someone who makes an act that is subsequently seen to be detrimental can be said to have a disorder, and someone who makes an act that is subsequently seen to be beneficial can be said to be sensible.

Whether someone who makes an intuitive act because it makes sense at the time can only be said to have a disorder or be sensible subsequent to the act when the consequences of the act are known.

Moral codes
A moral code is an example of something that is followed intuitively because it makes sense at the time.

As Wittgenstein wrote in the Tractatus, ethical values cannot be put into words. The reasons why something is moral cannot be put into words, even though the moral code itself can be put into words. "Thou shall not kill" can be included within a proposition even though why thou shall not kill cannot be. One follows the moral code because it intuitively makes sense. This doesn't mean that one cannot break one's own moral code if the circumstances require it, for example, if "thou shall not kill" conflicts with one's personal survival.

Moral codes can be described but not justified.

Moral codes can be described but not justified. — RussellA

Doing X harms others, therefore X is morally wrong. Could this be not a justification of moral code?

I think it's because what is described nowadays as philosophy doesn't have the foundational concepts required to comprehend why it's important. — Wayfarer

Why is one difference more philosophically important than another difference?

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world.

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun?

Doing X harms others, therefore X is morally wrong. Could this be not a justification of moral code? — Corvus

The moral code "Doing X harms others, therefore X is morally wrong" can be described.

But, how can you justify in words why that X harming others is morally wrong?

Why is harming others wrong?

Why is harming others wrong? — RussellA

It would be like asking "Why 1+1=2", wouldn't it?

But, how can you justify in words why that X harming others is morally wrong? — RussellA

It can be justified based on practical reason, which all humans supposed to share, and accept the certain moral codes as the maxim. Of course there would be folks who don't agree, or understand the maxim.

In that case, it is not because it cannot be justified, but because they might have different criteria of reason, or indeed they have no understanding of the moral code why it is right or wrong, which is not universal or shared or agreed, or just unintelligent.

In that case, they would be treated as morally corrupt or morally insensitive, or even folks with no morality by the rest of the society.

It would be like asking "Why 1+1=2", wouldn't it? — Corvus

Some would say that 1 + 1 = 10

It depends on what number system you are using.

It depends on what number system you are using. — RussellA

Of course. But we must stick to what is called "normativity" when discussing morality. There could be folks who don't even know what morality means. What is the point of talking about the extreme ends, when the whole issue is about normativity?

Some would say that 1 + 1 = 10 — RussellA

Morality is also based on what is called "normativity". Without it, morality derails into subjective denialism.

Of course there would be folks who don't agree, or understand the maxim...In that case, they would be treated as morally corrupt or morally insensitive......................Morality is also based on what is called "normativity" — Corvus

Slavery was normative in Ancient Rome and played an important role in its society and economy (Wikipedia - Slavery in ancient Rome)

It may well be that the minority who did not agree with slavery were treated as morally corrupt or morally insensitive by the majority

But does that mean that they were in fact either morally corrupt or morally insensitive?

But does that mean that they were in fact either morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Moral normativity is effective for the time period and the societies we live in. You don't go back in history, and bring in some strange and weird practices they used to have in the history books, and claim as if they are relevant to us now, and as some meaningful examples for the current moral normativity. That would be a fallacy of anachronism.

Sometimes people do things intuitively because it makes sense at the time. Sometimes these acts are intuitive, such as giving up a well paid job or starting to take a particular drug. It may not be possible to put their reasons into words, other than the feeling that it is the right thing to do. — RussellA

I think people often act out of things like fear and low self-esteem. The things they do do not make sense, but are done to punish themselves, or sabotage their future.

Moral codes can be described but not justified. — RussellA

Perhaps moral codes are all rooted in what gives the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity. The Nazis thought their best chance was to kill everyone not like themselves. The American enslavers amassed wealth by brutalizing others. Many believe the best chance for anyone is to makes things better for everyone, so you won't need to kill or steal from me in order to survive and prosper yourself.

Moral normativity is effective for the time period and the societies we live in...................That would be a fallacy of anachronism. — Corvus

OK, lets consider 2025 and avoid anachronism.

Stoning to death is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, and therefore normative within Iran today (Wikipedia - Capital punishment in Iran).

Some within Iran may disagree with this law. That some disagree with the moral normativity of the society that they live in, does it follow that this makes them necessarily morally corrupt or morally insensitive?

Perhaps moral codes are all rooted in what gives the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity. — Patterner

Moral Relativism rather than Moral Absolutism.

Stoning to death is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, and therefore normative within Iran today (Wikipedia - Capital punishment in Iran).

Some within Iran may disagree with this law. That some disagree with the moral normativity of the society that they live in, does it follow that this makes them necessarily morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Again you are not telling the difference between moral judgement and legal punishment.
The example demonstrates, that adultery is universally judged as moral wrong. Moral judgement ends there.

The punishment is a legal judgement. It has nothing to do with morality. Legal punishment is all different from country to country depending on what religion mainly they practice, and what the effect of their traditional legal customs are, and how much they stick to their own legal customs. Nothing to do with morality.

Some society would have only moral judgement on certain acts, but other countries societies would brush the acts under the legality too.

The punishment is a legal judgement. It has nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

Yes, legal judgments are different to moral judgements. But as bread is different to wheat, bread is made from wheat. Legal judgements are founded in moral judgments. Any law not judged to be moral would be unacceptable

From Law vs. Ethics: The Debate Over What’s Legal and What’s Right

While the law functions as a system of rules backed by political authority to maintain order, ethics is a broader concept grounded in personal, cultural, and societal values.

Law is a formal system of rules enforced by governmental institutions. The law’s objective is to maintain social order, protect rights, and promote justice.

Justice, after all, is a product of moral values.

The protection of rights is a moral duty.

Social order is the moral thing to achieve.

If Legal judgment is not founded on moral judgment, where does legal judgment get its authority?

If Legal judgment is not founded on moral judgment, where does legal judgment get its authority? — RussellA

Legal judgements and punishments for the criminal acts comes from the set of criminal laws of the country, and only the appointed legal judge can hand down the decisions on the details of punishment. That process is nothing to do with morality.

Moral Relativism rather than Moral Absolutism. — RussellA

Certainly, morality is relative. But I'm suggesting there's a common reason for all morality. All have the same goal, but have different, even opposing, ideas about how the goal should be achieved.

That process is nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

I agree that once the criminal laws have been established, it then becomes a legal rather than moral judgment.

But the criminal justice system will only work if the criminal laws are moral.

Would you accept as a citizen of a country criminal laws that were not moral?

It happens all the time. It was the defining characteristic of American law for a very long time. Many will argue that it still is, and they have a case.

Certainly, mortality is relative. But I'm suggesting there's a common reason for all morality.........................Perhaps moral codes are all rooted in what gives the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity. — Patterner

Moral absolutism is a meta ethical view that some or even all actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence (Wikipedia - Moral absolutism)

Is it possible for a moral code to be intrinsically right, even though it may not give the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity?

Yes, it is. Which means my idea was wrong.

I never did :) — Arcane Sandwich

Tell me something I don't know.

I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire: — Arcane Sandwich

OK.... if you say so.

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world. — RussellA

But that's completely groundless speculation. Judgement is a cognitive function, exercised by an agent. And besides, even if it is true that other rational sentient life-forms have evolved, why would it not be the case that they too face existential angst as we do? (In Mahāyāna Buddhist mythology, it has long been accepted that there are other inhabited worlds, but that the same fundamental conditions apply there also, due to the principle of dependent origination.)

Is it possible for a moral code to be intrinsically right, even though it may not give the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity? — RussellA

For example, enlisting to fight Nazism during WWII. On a smaller scale, every time an individual declines an opportunity to gain from an illicit promise of wealth.

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world.

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA

Even if H sapiens is the only example in the whole universe of an animal that can formulate judgements in symbolic linguistic form why would that fact by itself not qualify such an ability as natural? What would be the alternative? I can only think of two—that it is an unnatural ability or that it is a supernatural ability, and the first of those seems absurd and the second tendentious and ultimately incoherent.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is, but only in a few domains I can think of: for examples, the domain of argument itself (obviously) and the domain of adaptability and the domains of the arts and sciences.

What was the name of the bosun on the good ship 'higgs'?

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA

There is a philosophical difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge. Is there a philosophical difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson?

What was the name of the bosun on the good ship 'higgs'? — Janus

Nicely done! :grin:

Is there a philosophical difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson? — Patterner

A very good philosophical question. The philosophy of particle physics is an academic topic.

For example, the Cambridge University press has a series about elements in the philosophy of physics.

From Philosophy of Particle Physics

This Element offers an introduction to selected philosophical issues that arise in contemporary particle physics, aimed at philosophers who have limited prior exposure to quantum field theory. One the one hand, it critically surveys philosophical work on the representation of particles in quantum field theory, the formal machinery and conceptual implications of renormalization and renormalization group methods, and ontological and methodological questions raised by the use of effective field theory techniques in particle physics. On the other, it identifies topics in particle physics that have not yet received philosophical attention and sketches avenues for philosophical analysis of those topics.

As to why the ability to judge should be argued to be of special importance—it very obviously is — Janus

Why is the ability to judge of "special" importance? I agree that it is an important philosophical question, but why more important than other philosophical questions, such as those of space, time, existence, consciousness, the quantum theory, knowledge, the origin of the Universe, etc?

But that's completely groundless speculation. — Wayfarer

Perhaps, but as you correctly wrote:

The capacity to grasp what could be, might be, or should be, is what distinguishes humans from other species — Wayfarer

:up: