Apparently :ok:

Does your idea of what is morally wrong have anything to do with anything other than personal disgust? If so, then enlighten me please. Perhaps you can persuade me to your way of thinking? — Noah Te Stroete

Anyway, enough jokes and throwing shade. Back to business.

How can you explain morality in a sensible way without a foundation in moral feelings? I doubt that you can.

The foundation is the continuation of society, further founded in our nature as social creatures.

The foundation is the continuation of society, further founded in our nature as social creatures. — Noah Te Stroete

That is meaningless without any moral feeling about it. Why should anyone care? The caring is why it matters. This is basic and obvious.

I should say that I believe that some moral sentiments are relative. Others are knowable moral truths. Child raping is wrong is a moral truth. Kosher diet is morally relative.

I should say that I believe that some moral sentiments are relative. Others are knowable moral truths. Child raping is wrong is a moral truth. Kosher diet is morally relative. — Noah Te Stroete

Moral truths in what sense? In a meaningless sense? I reject that way of thinking for obvious reasons. But yes, it is a moral truth in a sensible sense.

That is meaningless without any moral feeling about it. — S

Moral feeling is a necessary condition. Harm to society is a necessary condition. I think both of them together is sufficient.

Moral feeling is a necessary condition. Harm to society is a necessary condition. I think both of them together is sufficient. — Noah Te Stroete

Sufficient for what? What are you talking about? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Be clearer. :brow:

Both together suffice for a moral truth.

They suffice for a moral truth. — Noah Te Stroete

Moral feelings and what they're about suffice for moral truth. Harm to society is just one particular thing which a moral truth could be about, depending on how you morally feel about it.

So you believe in moral truths? If so, then I have nothing to argue about.

So you believe in moral truths? If so, then I have nothing to argue about. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, I am a moral relativist. I have made that known. Look that up if you don't know what that entails.

Will do

So you are definitely a descriptive moral relativist. So am I. Are you also a meta-ethical moral relativist? I am not.

So you are definitely a descriptive moral relativist. So am I. Are you also a meta-ethical moral relativist? I am not. — Noah Te Stroete

Shit. You've caught me out. Now I'll have to look up the philosophical jargon. I'm a little rusty on that one. I think I'm both, but await my confirmation. :grin:

I just don’t have the stomach to harm a baby. — Noah Te Stroete

But they taste great with mashed potato and vegetables. They taste heavenly, in fact. Just be careful not to overcook them. :ok:

So you are definitely a descriptive moral relativist. So am I. Are you also a meta-ethical moral relativist? I am not. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, I'm both.

Oops, too many consecutive posts. Sir2u is going to have a field day. Still, I'm closer to getting that prized 10k and becoming the new Agustino, only funnier, wiser, better looking, more humble, and less ironic.

whether it is my inability to state it clearly or your lack of understanding it correctly- but that reply has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make.

I disagree with your repeated return to the idea that you can 'objectively' pick any activity you personally approve of (such as vaccination) and claim it to be such an argument, purely on the grounds that it is the model most scientists in the field currently agree on. That is not anywhere near a good enough reason to consider that model to be so far above the others. — Isaac

Amen.

Exactly. And you think it's obvious enough that one should vaccinate their child, and you think it's obvious enough that we should brush our teeth, and you think it's obvious enough... — Isaac

Yes, and Tim Wood thinks that it's obvious enough that there's an absolute moral standard. We had better follow suit, I suppose, even if that means throwing reason out of the window.

Dogmatism is the order of the day.

Indeed, it is not hard to grasp. Anyone familiar enough with common objections to moral relativism will recognise this. And it is easily refuted. You're making the illogical argument that if you're a moral relativist, then you must be an amoralist. I pointed that out ages out. Sorry, but you're not doing fine. You're still not getting it. — S

Thanks, I’ll do a few hours of research today. It would have been easier if you just directly pointed to the lack of logic. Understand how demeaning it might make you feel to engage the point directly to such an ignorant person as myself. I will crawl back down the mountain master S.

The foundation is the continuation of society, further founded in our nature as social creatures.
— Noah Te Stroete

That is meaningless without any moral feeling about it. Why should anyone care? The caring is why it matters. This is basic and obvious. — S

"'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" - Hume.

The old rationalist conception of morality is as dead as God.

whether it is my inability to state it clearly or your lack of understanding it correctly- but that reply has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make. — Rank Amateur

Odd. It certainly looks otherwise. Are you sure you're not just in denial?

Thanks, I’ll do a few hours of research today. It would have been easier if you just directly pointed to the lack of logic. Understand how demeaning it might make you feel to engage the point directly to such an ignorant person as myself. I will crawl back down the mountain master S. — Rank Amateur

I try to help. You can reproach me for not being all nice and cuddly about it, but I do try to help. That I'm arrogant and insensitive doesn't make me any less right or logical.

I thought that pointing out the logical error seemed appropriate. Must I construct a logical argument for you as well? What would I need you for in that case? The way I see it, it's on you to put forward an argument for whatever it is that you're claiming, and I will then analyse it and inform you of any problems I detect, and then we can either work on them or you can just close it down as you sometimes do when it gets a bit too much for you.

You have tried. I will give you that much. But I'm not going to lie and call it a big success.

If I might dare to bridge the gulf between the extreme moral relativist and the moral absolutist, I think the slightly maligned notion of ethical naturalism is the elephant in the room which no-one wants to address.

We cannot argue that morals are objective because there is no means for them to be, but we must somehow account for the fact that, of the 7 billion people on the planet, the vast majority of them prefer not to kill each other on a whim, or boil babies, or torture for fun etc.

The statistics are way beyond statistically significant, in some localised situations, maybe even 100%. This widespread agreement does not make their values 'right', I'm absolutely a moral relativist, but it does demand an explanation. Whether you argue for evolved biology, random selection, cultural homogeneity or God's will... Ignoring the fact is what often makes the moral relativist argument sound bizarre. Likewise, ignoring the utility of this fact as an explanation is what makes the absolutist argument sound unnecessarily mystical.

I think the question of whether there exist objective morals is a pseudo question. It depends entirely on what criteria we are going to allow to constitute existence. The more important question is - to what extent are we going to allow the consistency of certain preferences in a majority of the population to act as a justification for imposing those on the remainder? That's basically what I see as the job of normative ethics.

This widespread agreement does not make their values 'right', I'm absolutely a moral relativist, but it does demand an explanation. — Isaac

The explanation is that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and this fact is understood by everyone except extreme moral relativists.

We cannot argue that morals are objective because there is no means for them to be — Isaac

No-one has done it so far, but that doesn't prove that it can't be done.

"'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" - Hume. — S

And I stopped believing something just because some old dead fart said it when I was 14.

The explanation is that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and this fact is understood by everyone — Herg

Right, that's that one nailed. Move on shall we everyone?

I think the question of whether there exist objective morals is a pseudo question. It depends entirely on what criteria we are going to allow to constitute existence. — Isaac

One of many pseudo-questions in philosophy. Have you checked out the discussion on ancient texts? If we apply the criteria of moral objectivism, it results in error theory. How pragmatic is error theory? Not as pragmatic as moral relativism in my assessment.

The explanation is that pleasure is good and pain is bad, and this fact is understood by everyone
— Herg

Right, that's that one nailed. Move on shall we everyone? — Isaac

Yes, let's. We've had the last thread on abortion, and now we've got morality sorted. What next, Tim Wood? :lol:

And I stopped believing something just because some old dead fart said it when I was 14. — Herg

And now you're fourteen-and-a-half and brimming with wisdom. Step aside, Hume. Behold, Herg!