If arguing from a purely secular point of view, morals are just another form of law, etiquite, custom, or tact. — Hanover

But what of ethics?

It simply makes no sense to speak of the world of forms, where the good exists outside the existence of humanity if you take a fully secular view of this. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no humans in existence anywhere, it does not matter. Mattering is a human concern. It is not a concern for whatever deer took a tree to the head.

On the other hand, if God says the tree falling in the woods matters (i.e. it is either good or bad), then it matters, even if there is no human anywhere to assess it. — Hanover

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter?

If you want to make the argument that morals are not relative to time, place, and the peculiarities of different cultures, you can, but you're going to have argue either some mystical creator of morality or you're going to have argue something inherent within the constitution of the human DNA that demands them. — Hanover

A poor argument, if that's what this is. Devine command and evolutionary necessity do not cover all the options. This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended.

This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

A group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we do some morals?"

The rest of the group stares and one says, "What?"

They all go back to chewing.

Your somewhat cryptic assertions don't seem to show anything. A group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we love each other?" They nail him to a tree.

Devine command and evolutionary necessity do not cover all the options. This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

Yes, I think this may well be the critical matter - "made" by our actions.

Some folk supose that thinking of morals as made but not found devalues them, as if they were as a result arbitrary. On the contrary, it makes our actions central and of the greatest import.

I can get behind that but this is a subtle idea and flies against traditions, etc.

What is your response against the view that if we make morality together by doing, how do we evaluate this? Is not selecting a foundation, say virtue ethics or Nussbaum's capability framework, essentially a preference and we might instead chose negative values instead like Trumpism, say, which may seem to like virtue when seen from the perspective of others. What is the way we settle these matters. Is it just old fashioned consequences regarding harm and barriers to eudaimonia?

"Hey! Why don't we love each other?" They nail him to a tree. — Banno

Poignant. Jesus would go to the Pharisees and bitch at them for making a show of their rituals while not caring at all about to the poor. He ignored Jewish customs, he showed his ass at the Temple. That's why it's ironic that people associate him with moralizing. He didn't care for rules. He saw them as easily subverted on the way to exploiting people.

Moral rules don't help normal people. They exist for the soul purpose of condemnation. Only those who were born to condemn care about moral realism.

I've noticed that the OT frequently mentions the rewards that one who keeps God's commandments can expect (and the punishments that are frequently dished out). It's old-fashined stick and carrot persuasion. — Ludwig V

Following the commandments generally does yield good results. Those who stray generally pay a price and bad deeds can carry a nasty ripple effect. It seems to me that modern moral philosophy (at least as I was taught it) has largely lost this connection. Instead, modern morality is often associated with sacrifice or inconvenience for the agent, like sacrificing one's own happiness for the multitude. Or following stringent rules because they are rational.

Those who stray generally pay a price and bad deeds can carry a nasty ripple effect. — BitconnectCarlos

It here sounds like you're referring to something like karma, rather than a deity's judgments.

like sacrificing one's own happiness for the multitude. — BitconnectCarlos

That's what taxes are all about, right? One's giving of one's own profits for the common good, this at least within genuine democracies. Here, I tend to agree with Mr. Franklin when he said:

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

Moral rules don't help normal people. They exist for the soul purpose of condemnation. Only those who were born to condemn care about moral realism. — frank

Morality is not algorithmic.

Same answer for . There's no criteria, like virtue ethics or capability framework, that will work in all cases for all questions; and yet we have to do the evaluation, so we have an iterative process, but in which each iteration changes the rule being iterated. So the list of virtues and the list of capabilities changes over time.

What is the way we settle these matters? Well, that's part of these matters.

What is the way we settle these matters? Well, that's part of these matters. — Banno

Nice.

What is the way we settle these matters? Well, that's part of these matters. — Banno

I think we're in agreement:

Only those who were born to condemn care about moral realism. — frank

It here sounds like you're referring to something like karma, rather than a deity's judgments. — javra

Or maybe we could just call it the nature of reality.

That's what taxes are all about, right? One's giving of one's own profits for the common good, this at least within genuine democracies. Here, I tend to agree with Mr. Franklin when he said: — javra

I wasn't thinking of taxes. I had in mind the idea that the "moral" thing to do is to maximize the pleasure/utility of the masses and to give no special regard for e.g. one's own family. It is to demand the impossible - complete impartiality towards the entire world. To regard even one's own son or daughter as simply another moral unit no different from a stranger.

Atleast taxes can benefit the taxpayer.

Or maybe we could just call it the nature of reality. — BitconnectCarlos

Too many criminals getting away with their crimes in this world for me to consider it the nature of reality. But perhaps you've addressed "reality" as something which goes beyond the physical and the lives lived in it ...

I had in mind the idea that the "moral" or "good" thing to do is to maximize the pleasure/utility of the masses and to give no special regard for e.g. one's own family. — BitconnectCarlos

Which would be a perversion of goodness to be sure. But then isn't this a scarecrow to the commonplace decency that all adults need to give something of their own well-being for the benefit of the community they pertain to? I for one example know of many that detest jury duty when selected for it - even though there can be no such thing as jury-of-one's-peers in its absence. As far as I can tell, the sense of community has be lacking, or else slowly degrading, for some time. This, at least, in my neck of the woods.

Too many criminals getting away with their crimes in this world for me to consider it the nature of reality. But perhaps you've addressed "reality" as something which goes beyond the physical and the lives lived in it ... — javra

Just the physical.

Bad behavior ruins relationships. Impulsive amoral men make bad friends and cannot be trusted around partners. You can behave like a selfish asshole but it's probably gonna have a cost so you better get really, really good at hiding it. If you're gonna skew the scales you better be able to trick everyone.

It can work for a time, but probably not forever. People talk.

But then isn't this a scarecrow to the commonplace decency that all adults need to give something of their own well-being for the benefit of the community they pertain to? — javra

I'm not sure what you mean by scarecrow, but yes, I agree that community is important and that there's some collective responsibility towards it. A strong community serves you and your family.

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter? — praxis

Things matter to God.

Following the commandments generally does yield good results. — BitconnectCarlos

Like not mixing linen and wool (sha'atnez)?

Moral rules don't help normal people. They exist for the soul purpose of condemnation. — frank

Clever soul/sole pun.

This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

I intend for X, so I declare lying immoral. Mustn't X be moral for lying to be immoral? The point being, how do we know the Good if not discovered? If we can make the Good, is that not subjectivism?

To me, this seems rather obvious. How do we access the harm? We give the evidence or reasons to support the conclusion. The evidence usually comes in the form of testimony, reasoning, sensory experience, etc. — Sam26

Is this not Utilitarianism?

If we can make the Good, is that not subjectivism? — Hanover

Dunno. what's 'subjectivism"?

Note the "we". Not Me. So, where is us deciding what to do "subjective"?

Note the "we". Not Me. So, where is us deciding what to do "subjective"? — Banno

We is first person, you and me, but it would work just as well if just me, or the members of my house, neighborhood, town, state, etc. Relativity, subjectivity, it all has the same problems. Is murder moral if we agree it is? I say not.

Is murder moral if we agree it is? I say not. — Hanover

Me, too. So we agree on that... If we disagreed, there would be more to say.

Does that make our agreement subjective? Is our agreement relative? Or is this talk of subjective/objective relative/(...absolute?) just fluff?

Not at all sure what your point is.

group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we do some morals?"

The rest of the group stares and one says, "What?"

They all go back to chewing. — frank

Some hypothetical cavemen sat around an imaginary campfire eating anachronistic chicken piccata. Gnurt said to Glint, "you shouldn't hair drag my sister cave to cave." Glint, taking a gulp of his Pinot Gregio says "fuggitaboutit."

And Glint begets la costra nostra and Gnurt its opposite.

Such is the morality origin story.

That's what taxes are all about, right? One's giving of one's own profits for the common good, this at least within genuine democracies. Here, I tend to agree with Mr. Franklin when he said: — javra

That's true. But unless you realize that you are included in the common good, you will mistake your taxea for some kind of charity or protection money. But if one has some money, it is the result of the social structures that you live by. So your taxes give you the opportunity to make money. (And money itself is the result of the social structures you live by.)

Following the commandments generally does yield good results. — BitconnectCarlos

But does God command them because they yield good results or do they only yield good results because God comannded them? Or, perhaps, are they a set of criteria for assessing what a good life is?

I wasn't thinking of taxes. I had in mind the idea that the "moral" thing to do is to maximize the pleasure/utility of the masses and to give no special regard for e.g. one's own family. It is to demand the impossible - complete impartiality towards the entire world. To regard even one's own son or daughter as simply another moral unit no different from a stranger. — BitconnectCarlos

That is a real problem, sadly neglected in conventional philosophy. I don't know how to resolve it, but I am sure that a moral/legal system that does not acknowledge and deal with it is trying to ignore fundamental aspects of human nature.

Does that make our agreement subjective? Is our agreement relative? Or is this talk of subjective/objective relative/(...absolute?) just fluff? — Banno

I wouldn't say it is fluff, exactly. But I do suspect that it is a false dilemma that prevents us from paying attention to what actually matters, which is the interaction between the two.

Is this not Utilitarianism? — Hanover

It's not utilitarianism.

That's true. But unless you realize that you are included in the common good, you will mistake your taxea for some kind of charity or protection money. But if one has some money, it is the result of the social structures that you live by. So your taxes give you the opportunity to make money. (And money itself is the result of the social structures you live by.) — Ludwig V

:100:

Clever soul/sole pun. — Hanover

:grimace: