It doesn't have to be formulated as a command. One of the bedrock statements of your moral theory could be something like, "It's generally morally wrong to kick puppies." There could be many foundational moral statements of this sort. That's a conviction you hold to that's bedrock, you accept it as true, a given. Like a rule of chess.

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

Of what use is asserting that "It's wrong to kick puppies" — frank

...as part of an inference. And an inference depends on truth values.

One ought not kick puppies.
John kicked a puppy
John did what he ought not.

If "One ought not kick puppies" has no truth value, it cannot guide us in such inferences.

But it can, so it does.

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. I can simply say it's wrong and I might even give reasons why. "Don't kick puppies" has other uses stemming from the belief that kicking puppies is wrong. It grows out of the basic belief that something is immoral or wrong.

as part of an inference. — Banno

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

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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

I agree that moral sensibility comes first, that's the point of it being foundational. And the commands do have use, but it's not the most meaningful thing. The command comes from the conviction or belief that kicking puppies is wrong.

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

What do you mean by "wrong"?

, OK. Seems we have some agreement.

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

In this case immoral.

No, I wouldn't characterize it like that.

Nor I.

So we have social prohibitions that are not acts of faith.

That kinda fucks up Devine Command Theory.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why are you saying that?

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

No, it's a matter of feelings.

One could say that it's a matter of convictions (personal and communal). However, most people do have negative feelings about the matter because they see the harm done.

Just trolling the theists...

it's a matter of feelings. — frank

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?

Hence, a non-tyrannical monarchy being akin to a triangular square, or a married bachelor - this even if the “sole absolute ruler” is taken to be benevolent (by some of his/her subjects at least). — javra

It depends how you define your terms. There's a tricky problem here about sovereignty, specifically about the status of the person or body that makes the law. That person or body, it seems, cannot be subject to the law, because what it says or decides is the law (by definition). So you could say that the body that makes the law, is sovereign and therefore tyrannical. That leads to the conclusion that all societies that have a legal system are tyrannies. That is very problematic, unless one is an anarchist. There are two criteria that are used to distinguish between tyrants and sovereigns. One is that they are benevolent, at least in the sense that they try to do what is right. The other is that they are subject to the law.
The other issue here is that the British Constitution is uniquely (so far as I know) idiosyncratic. Nothing quite fits the standard categories. That's because there is no constitution - single coherent structure - that arranges everything. There is a collection of laws and customs, created in response to specific problems, that sort of manage to keep everything more or less working together. Nobody thinks it is a rational system. It depends entirely on everybody involved making the system work. Trump would have a field day with it.

given the way you so far put things, it all sounds a bit too much like freeloading to me. — javra

There are arguments that it is not just ree-loading. The British monarch is an embodiment or symbol of the continuity of the state. That means that Governments can come and go, but there is always continuity underpinning the changes. The monarch also has many ceremonial duties, demonstrating that the state is above and beyond the government of the day. Some countries assign that role to a President. Ireland (Eire), I believe, is one of them.

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.

That person or body, it seems, cannot be subject to the law — Ludwig V

While the US High Court apparently agrees, this seems to me to be quite mistaken. Subjecting oneself to one's own judgement is simple consistency.

Nobody thinks it is a rational system. — Ludwig V

On the contrary, such an ad hoc approach to social engineering is quite rational, as Popper argued in The Poverty of Historicism. By not adhering to a fixed constitution, the British system allows for more responsive, piecemeal reforms rather than trying to impose a grand, all-encompassing plan.

If it's something you're born with why do we have to teach children right from wrong? Moreover, what would it even mean to be born with that knowledge, i.e., moral knowledge?

It's something you were born with. — frank

I 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...

Yep.

There could be many foundational moral statements of this sort. That's a conviction you hold to that's bedrock, you accept it as true, a given. Like a rule of chess. — Sam26

Indeed.

I don't see how a moral statement can be considered truth-apt. I believe morality is rooted in emotion (though I don't necessarily subscribe to emotivism or expressivism) and also involves intersubjective agreements - cultural values.

However, if we accept the foundational principle of preventing or minimizing suffering, it seems possible to establish objective approaches that promote this principle, even though disagreements over definitions are inevitable.

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.

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.

I was thinking more of Aristotle.