Either that or mimicry as a means to get attention or as a means to seek affirmation during language acquisition does not count as rational thought
— creativesoul
It can and cannot. — Kenosha Kid
Your apprehension here is based upon a self-defeating, untenable notion of what counts as a worldview. One need not have a view about all elements of the world in order to have a worldview. They are all limited... incomplete. — creativesoul
Maintaining a social norm(rule of behaviour) is acting to do so, which is endeavoring in a goal oriented task of maintaining some norm for the sake of it.
— creativesoul
Or in fear of the consequences of not doing so, which is a massive slice of the wedge if not the thick end. — Kenosha Kid
Your apprehension here is based upon a self-defeating, untenable notion of what counts as a worldview. One need not have a view about all elements of the world in order to have a worldview. They are all limited... incomplete.
— creativesoul
And yet you said "almost entirely". That was what I was questioning. (I misquoted it as "completely" in my response.) — Kenosha Kid
Welp. There go my aspirations of being the Stalin of Political Correctness. — fdrake
as we seem to agree comparisons ""X is preferable to Y" is true" have better evidentiary status
...
On the other hand, comparative evaluations tend not to have that universality to them; they contrast within the context of evaluation rather than evaluate over all such contexts. — fdrake
My intuitions regarding moral claims is realist for the same reasons as I think knowledge is contextual; we can say something is right or wrong and be right in doing so so long as the context is appropriate. — fdrake
I wrote "almost entirely" because there are undoubtedly some beliefs which are part of one's initial worldview that they do not adopt wholesale. — creativesoul
Social-vs-antisocial is a first-order difference (“what should we do?”). Fundamentalism-vs-science-vs-relativism is a second-order difference (“how do we figure it out?”). Any of the second-order methodologies could in principle reach any of the first-order conclusions. — Pfhorrest
I don’t “believe in moral objects” at all, which again makes me think you’re not understanding what my position even if. — Pfhorrest
I just think it’s possible for one moral claim to be more or less correct than another, in a way that doesn’t depend on who or how many people make that claim. — Pfhorrest
Scientists aren’t using a different kind of knowing, they’re just better at using the ordinary kind. — Pfhorrest
There is an inherent inadequacy hereabouts in the language being used to account for morality. — creativesoul
Maintaining a social norm(rule of behaviour) is acting to do so, which is endeavoring in a goal oriented task of maintaining some norm for the sake of it. — Kenosha Kid
Not all continued practice of some social norm amounts to "maintaining" them. — creativesoul
Yes, I agree, your language is sloppy. — Kenosha Kid
...you're quite rude about clarifying your ambiguities for some strange reason. — Kenosha Kid
There cannot be, then, a meaningful objective moral universe. Morality, viewed (correctly imo) in this bottom-up way, cannot have top-down rules because that is not what morality really is. Even the nearest to a fundamental rule -- do not be a hypocrite -- is not objective but statistical: there exist many for whom this is a practical impossibility because they lack empathy. They simply cannot equate the harm they do with the harm they'd feel if roles were reversed. Such people must be allowed their own moral frames of reference, because if you were in their shoes, that's what you should expect. — Kenosha Kid
why is being a hypocrite such a terrible thing? — Luke
We, as a social group, don't agree - or, at least, we aren't acculturated to accept/believe - that psychopathic serial killers should be allowed their own individual moral frame of reference. — Luke
If hypocrisy reduces to the intentional construction of false practices — Mww
Another way to look at it, is the reality of possible exoneration from a killing, as opposed to the reality of impossible exoneration for the negation of self-respect. — Mww
This is the separation of cultural anthropology from moral philosophy, the former says it is true we are not acculturated from a social perspective — Mww
Firstly, I get the sense that's not how morality works. We, as a social group, don't agree - or, at least, we aren't acculturated to accept/believe - that psychopathic serial killers should be allowed their own individual moral frame of reference. — Luke
Secondly, why is being a hypocrite such a terrible thing? Is it worse than killing people? — Luke
Thirdly, if the same moral truths are arrived at from either bottom-up or top-down approaches, then what's the difference? — Luke
This is oxymoronic. If psychopaths have no emotional empathy, and no cognitive empathy reflex, their frame of reference cannot be considered moral. — Kenosha Kid
Even the nearest to a fundamental rule -- do not be a hypocrite -- is not objective but statistical: there exist many for whom this is a practical impossibility because they lack empathy. They simply cannot equate the harm they do with the harm they'd feel if roles were reversed. Such people must be allowed their own moral frames of reference, because if you were in their shoes, that's what you should expect. — Kenosha Kid
"hypocrite" here is as defined in the OP. — Kenosha Kid
Agreed, but it it's your oxymoron, not mine. As you stated in the OP... — Luke
Okay, but why is hypocrisy so terrible? — Luke
Mea culpa! It's a long OP. There will be errors, sorry. — Kenosha Kid
Okay, but why is hypocrisy so terrible?
— Luke
If you have no confidence that an altruistic deed will be reciprocated, there is no personal benefit in making them. — Kenosha Kid
If your question is Why is hypocrisy objectively terrible?, then the question has no meaning. As I've explained to Pfhorrest, it is unreasonable to revert to an objectivist idea of morality when investigating a scientific naturalist idea of the same: the two are incompatible on that level. — Kenosha Kid
To which "error" are you referring? It's not just a typo; it appears to impact your argument that the fundamental rule of hypocrisy is statistical rather than objective. — Luke
So you define hypocrisy as failing to reciprocate altruism or as being antisocial? That's not a typical definition, to my knowledge, but okay. — Luke
If you're making the claim that morality has a natural explanation via a bottom-up scientific approach, in which you describe hypocrisy as a "fundamental rule" — Luke
Not at all, the difference between social and antisocial is categorical. — Kenosha Kid
No, I did not describe hypocrisy as a fundamental rule of naturalistic morality... if we from our post-agricultural, morality-obsessed vantage point wish to characterise how those drives and capacities work in conjunction with some constrained but otherwise arbitrary culture, those "fundamental rules" are how we might do it: i.e. they are the precursors of rational morality, not the foundations of socialisation. — Kenosha Kid
Then your assertion of the OP: "Even the nearest to a fundamental rule -- do not be a hypocrite -- is not objective but statistical" is false.
The near-fundamental rule of 'do not be a hypocrite' is not statistical, but categorical: one is either social or antisocial. Yet your claim is that this rule is "not objective but statistical". — Luke
The "fundamental rule" (or near-fundamental rule) in question here is 'do not be a hypocrite' which you have defined or equated with being social or with not being antisocial. How is being social "not the foundations of socialisation"? — Luke
Why do you believe that statistics is impossible with categorical data? I do statistics with categorical data all the time. My point was that one cannot consider a psychopath to be immoral but rather amoral since they mostly lack the practical possibility of engaging in reciprocal altruism. — Kenosha Kid
Basic moral conceptions are ill-informed and often inaccurate approximations to sociobiological responses that we are otherwise unaware of. — Kenosha Kid
I do associate them: I do not equate them. — Kenosha Kid
However, if it's categorical then it's not a matter of statistics or degree. — Luke
What is the cutoff for being amoral instead of immoral/moral? — Luke
A definite dividing line between those categories is not something "empirically observed" in nature. — Luke
Basic moral conceptions are ill-informed and often inaccurate approximations to sociobiological responses that we are otherwise unaware of.
— Kenosha Kid
Really? Was there a general consensus that sociality and altruism were bad prior to these scientific insights? — Luke
You defined them as synonymous. — Luke
If 99% of the population can practically follow a rule, the rule can hold statistically, not objectively. This is the point you are countering but I'm not seeing what you think the killer blow is. — Kenosha Kid
If psychopaths have no emotional empathy, and no cognitive empathy reflex, their frame of reference cannot be considered moral. — Kenosha Kid
I am genuinely interested in what you mean by "false practice". — Luke
if I were able to forgive myself for an act of killing someone, then I think I would have little trouble being able to forgive myself for an act of hypocrisy. — Luke
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.