The logic of morality
  • Deleted User
    0
    A. Ignorance
    Bad = good
    Good = bad
    Therefore:
    Bad -> good
    Good -> bad

    B. Truth
    Good = good
    Bad = bad
    Therefore:
    Good -> good
    Bad -> bad

    C. Knowledge
    Ignorant -> knowledge of truth

    D. Conclusions
    Vagueness is present as far as knowledge of causality goes
    So:
    No claim on necessity of causal chain can be made
    &
    No claim about objective good/bad can be made so no telos

    So basically, I would find no problem with going by context, using emotion and instinct, cultivating certain attributes, even in a disciplined way (being a mystic), but I must keep in mind the limitations of my knowledge and see the arbitrarity of what I do to myself. It is a little odd, because it conflicts with my experience/instinct, to see it this way, somewhat orderlessly, somewhat emptilly, but that is fine. This is the antithesis of what we are obviously taught to believe, but it is fine. I've read discussions in philosophy and mysticism which touch on this topic here and there and I've done what I can to bring them together. I obviously left a lot for you all to extrapolate for yourselves.
    Deleted User Options
  • Deleted User
    0
    Think of it in terms of a child touching a hot flame, as an example.
    Deleted User Options
  • Deleted User
    0
    In English:
    I am a child who wants to touch a hot flame (not not a hot flame). I touch it and realize I don't want to touch it anymore. I did not understand (and could not have understood) I should not touch a hot flame until I touched it myself. So as I grow up I form a belief system analogous to this hot-flame rule. But when I follow it I encounter a problem. How do I explain those who are outliers to my belief system: those who figuratively get away with murder, and those whose good deeds never go unpunished? (That is a vast simplification). There are theories I thought I believed, ones that tell me there is a higher order of truth that I do not understand; perhaps those deviants have not yet reached the place of those saints, who suffer for their fire, as the theory goes. Logic helps me connect to those who are like me, but also alienates me from those who I do not understand. What should I do? Until I know everything, I should probably just do what I think is best based on my experiences. How ironic.
    Deleted User Options
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    There are theories I thought I believed, ones that tell me there is a higher order of truth that I do not understand; — Nasir Shuja

    When someone tells you something like this, don't just drink the Kool-Aid. Ask yourself, "Wait a minute. How does this person know there's a high order of truth that I don't understand? How did they discover it? How did they learn it? How do I know that they understand it? How do I know they're not just bullshitting me? How do I know that they're not just deluded or manipulating me?" Etc.
    Terrapin Station Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories