So I hold that based on my preferences and whims — Wosret

Are your preferences and whims your own? What if they're not? Where do they come from?

Because I want to, it's natural. We, and other animals are competitive, and status driven. We all want to. There would be no dilemma, no need at all for morality if we didn't.

Doesn't matter.

Because I want to — Wosret

"You should do things you want to because you want to" is circular reasoning.

it's natural. — Wosret

That's not a reason unless you answer the question "why should we do as is natural?".

Doesn't matter. — Wosret

It does matter because to answer me that it is your whims and preferences which provide the necessary link between reason and self-interest is to merely obscure its underlying foundation. Where do your whims and preferences come from? What's your underlying metaphysics? Are you an individual who decides by himself what his whims and preferences are? How does this process come about? This is important to understand why your whims and preferences are such that self-interest becomes the goal of your reasoning faculty.

I've already said that there is no reason why I should, and one could do otherwise fine, I'm asking for reasons why I shouldn't.

To be even more explicit...

If your whims and preferences are actually not your own, then your reasoning faculty cannot be directed towards self-interest - it would at best appear as if it were so directed, when in reality it isn't. So that would mean that you are actually not acting in your self-interest when you think you are so acting by following your whims and preferences, meaning that you are fundamentally self-deluded.

So to avoid that, you must first determine the origin of your whims and preferences, meaning metaphysics and psychology.

It doesn't follow from the mere existence of an obligation that it ought to be followed, which the sentence "one should do X" means.

It doesn't follow from the mere existence of an obligation that it ought to be followed, which the sentence "one should do X" means. — BlueBanana

Again, this talk about being obliged to follow an obligation is confused. It's just the case that there's an obligation to not murder (for example), which is to say that some relevant authority has commanded people not to murder.

So that would mean that you are actually not acting in your self-interest when you think you are so acting by following your whims and preferences, meaning that you are fundamentally self-deluded. — Agustino

And this is actually not that radical of a claim at all. We often say about others "they are not acting in their best interest". It's a phenomenon that we observe quite commonly. How is it possible that they are not acting in their best interest all the while they are certain that they are? And if that applies to them, why wouldn't it also apply to us?

Again, this talk about being obliged to follow an obligation is confused. — Michael

It's not; there's a vast difference between one having an obligation, or being obliged, and that one should do something. Obligations are always external, and the former means that according to some other being, one should do something, whereas that one should do something (at least in the context) would be interpreted so that one themselves thinks so.

It's not; there's a vast difference between one having an obligation, or being obliged, and that one should do something. Obligations are always external, and the former means that according to some other being, one should do something, whereas that one should do something (at least in the context) would be interpreted so that one themselves thinks so. — BlueBanana

So you're just asking about motivation? You want to know what motivation one has to not murder?

I was talking about manipulation and deception... people immediately imagine the worst things imaginable, and crimes, probably because they're already constantly poorly attempting what I'm talking about on a daily basis, but just failing.

No we're not, we're left with motivations, and different ones, that are presumably all equal. It isn't as if, if there are no oughts, action would be impossible... even oughts presuppose motivation to do other than one ought to, or there would be no reason for them...

You're just not making much sense. Even if our motivations are random (though they aren't, they're mainly self invested, which is why morality, and the notion of oughts exists in the first place, and even in the absence of them, would still exist), some will be randomly malevolent, why shouldn't they follow their random malevolent motivations? Do you have a real opinion on this issue, or just obfuscation?

The idea is that in the absence of right and wrong, all things are permitted, not impossible, or random... where's the precedent for that?

If it's all just normative, then one ought to do what is normative? Norms don't originate in the normative, so that would be impossible, and also implies that regardless of what is normative, that is what ought to be done... is it controversial to say that sometimes the norm is wrong?

Those that form the boundaries that delimit human thought and affective capacity. — Agustino

I'm trying to understand, but I really don't have even a vague sense of what you mean. Can I get a concrete example?

Yes, in the same manner that blindness (or any other form of ignorance, whether systematic or random) does not make one immune to the structures that are otherwise revealed by sight. — Agustino

Does that mean animals are bound by the same moral laws as humans? If they are exempt, why?

I thought you were using "normative" in the natural language, and not technical sense. So, your position is just then it isn't right or wrong absent right or wrong? That one must presuppose those in order to object? Well, that is kind of the point... that one has no objection without their presupposition, but I would think, would object to that. Unless playing an intellectual game, in real life, they would object to that, and then I went into what the basis of that could be, and if it were power struggles, fiat, or prudence, then those would only be substantial objections if I couldn't get away with it.

So you're just asking about motivation? — Michael

A good question, but not quite.

Damn that's a tough question.

Seriously though, that's a question.

I think what is the reason for the motivation is a rather decent answer.

No we're not, we're left with motivations — Wosret

So, even if we accept that, we're back to randomness. — Πετροκότσυφας

though they aren't, they're mainly self invested — Wosret

The fact that motivations aren't all random as we'd expect them to be if there was no generative principle behind them points precisely to the need for further investigation. Πετροκότσυφας is correct that we'd expect motivations to be random for he presupposes that different individuals will have different motivations and these would be individually mediated and thus random. However, this is not true. Motivations have a tendency to be self-invested, which points precisely to their common origin outside the individual as such.

I'm trying to understand, but I really don't have even a vague sense of what you mean. Can I get a concrete example? — Neva

Yes.

For example, human beings are so structured that they all need to consume food and drink water in order to survive. This is an invariant structure of being human which plays a determinate role in the types of behavior and feelings that are possible for a human being.

Another invariant structure is that human beings are vulnerable for a long time after birth, and so cannot survive alone (unlike other animals). This is another invariant feature of being human that determines possibilities of behavior and affection.

And so on.

Does that mean animals are bound by the same moral laws as humans? — Neva

To a certain extent they are, however, morality requires the presence of a rational aspect to the soul. And if this is present, it is much diminished in many animals where instinct governs most of the time. The absence of this rational aspect also makes animals quite incapable of committing the range of immoralities that man is capable of.

I said whim, and preference, and results matter a lot in that regard, as if the cost is high, the whim isn't worth it, that is just prudence. It's also hardly a whim that would make someone want to hurt someone so badly that they don't care about the consequences, that would require either significant distortion, obsession, and concern, or deep history investment, and the feeling of wrong.

None of that is what I'm talking about though, as most people don't have constant deranged inclinations to hurt people for no reason, I wouldn't think. They do however desire to get the things they want, that would be pleasurable, fun, or increase status, and if they could get them without damaging their reputation, or negative consequences, then they would be deeply tempted to do so.

Again, I said whim and preference. Not just whim. I really don't think that people just randomly feel like hurting people for no reason. What I'm talking about is just using people to get the things you want for expediency. People don't just want to hurt others for no reason at all. I said manipulation and deception. Not becoming a supervillain that wants to nuke metropolis just 'cause.

Why shouldn't I just take everything I want from everyone in every moment? — Wosret

This question is motivated by selfishness. It is, so to speak, the ego at its extreme. The problem is, we're social animals by necessity. We don't have the biological machinery - fangs, strength, speed, claws, etc. - to make it alone in the wilderness. That means society, and each individual in it, is necessary for our survival. So, if we're to survive as an individual we must work towards the welfare of the social group we're part of.

So, strangely, two opposite paths - one that motivates your question and the one that rejects such a course of action - originate from the same place viz. Selfishness.

The point that's relevant to your query is that if one were to follow your course of action, you wouldn't survive for long in society - look what they do to criminals. In other words, ''taking everything from everyone'', although based on self-interest, is ultimately self-destructive.

I've addressed these objections. This all only true if I couldn't get away with it, and then is just more self-interest in that case, it's prudence, and understanding that in the final analysis, I would not actually benefit.

This all only true if I couldn't get away with it — Wosret

You have a point. Somebody has to know and have the power to resist you. If not, there's no reason to hold back your ego. This has happened in history - from armies looting to serial killers murdering with impunity.

Perhaps the rewards of restraining the ego are greater than that of the ego unleashed...for most that is. It may be that people reason along Kantian terms. What if everyone unbridles their ego? Surely, that would easily make one as easily a victim as a victimizer. So we choose to restrain our selfishness.

Hardly isolated events, or things of history, people think in way too extreme of terms. It's rampant, right now and everywhere. Manipulation and deception to affect status, maintain reputation, and accrue material benefits. Some are just better at it than most, but it is the norm. People generally only tell the truth when it is beneficial, spend more money and time advertising and telling people that they gave to charities, or donated time than they gave, or donated. Exaggerations, omissions, outright fabrications...

I believe that people get extreme because they always have to imagine something worse than themselves when they think of evil. A murderer says that at least they don't hurt children, or haven't killed as many as another. People are full of rationalizations, justifications, excuses. There's always someone worse than me... they're the evil one.

People generally only tell the truth when it is beneficial, spend more money and time advertising and telling people that they gave to charities, or donated time than they gave, or donated. Exaggerations, omissions, outright fabrications... — Wosret

One thing that's important here is that the self can never be completely eliminated from human transactions. The best way to understand this is to know that even altruism, supposedly the highest good, yields personal benefits. Thus to begrudge an ostentatious donation is wrong because it's impossible for the donor to avoid some form of personal benefit in the process. Think of it as sharing - giving a part of what one has to someone in dire straits. Sharing is good, no?

This all only true if I couldn't get away with it — Wosret

Could you get away with the effects that immoral behaviour would have on you (and your own well-being), regardless of what other people do? I don't think you can, and that just shows that this is actually quite an incoherent scenario once we understand morality rightly. All this underlines that there are some things that aren't under your control such as what is right and wrong. For that matter, whether you get away with it or not in an external manner also isn't under your control.

To suppose you could get away with it is to suppose you are God and control the whole of reality.