The only real objection to that could be that it wouldn't work, that no one is skilled enough in manipulation or deception to get away with it, but that can be reduced to the lack of certainty, and fear of — Wosret

There's also the objection that immorality (manipulation and deception) are harmful in themselves, regardless of the external consequences they bring. That is Plato's entire argument about the "lie in the soul". To manipulate others, you must also manipulate yourself, because manipulation entails giving power to the willful aspect of your soul which seeks to determine reality as it wants it (according to your whims) and isn't concerned with how reality is.

So just like how you manipulate X to do what you want them to do, so likewise you will manipulate your reasoning aspect of the soul to think whatever you find convenient to think, and at that point, you're lost, since you've severed your contact with reality.

Your question seems confused. Asking why you should behave a certain way if moral obligations are man-made is like asking why something is illegal if laws are man-made.

That something is illegal just is that man has made such a law, and that one should behave a certain just is that man has made such an obligation.

Of course, you're able to choose to break the law (and be a criminal) and to disobey the obligation (and be immoral), but then you have to suffer whatever consequences that would entail.

No it isnt. Its far more like asking why should if follow the law if i could get away with not doing so? Aristotle said that what he got from philosophy was that he followed the law because it was right, and not because it was the law.

Also, ought we follow any and all laws, even unjust ones?

he followed the law because it was right, and not because it was the law. — Wosret

Well yes, it's quite obvious that it's not necessarily immoral to break the law.

I actually do think that that is true, but that already supposes too much of the position Im questioning. Without the soul, or truth anyway, that cant be true.

Its far more like asking why should if follow the law if i could get away with not doing so? — Wosret

Not at all. If moral obligations are man-made then that you should behave a certain way just is that such obligations have been imposed by man.

So, "I should do X" means "man has imposed the obligation to do X", just as "X is illegal" means "man has imposed a law against X". Which is why asking "why should I do X?" is like asking "why is X illegal"? The answer to both is "because man has dictated it to be so".

No law is actually just or unjust beyond preference or fiat. Since we disagree about such things it cant be "man" that decided it but some individual or group.

That response has no bearing on my comment.

I actually do think that that is true, but that already supposes too much of the position Im question. Without the soul, or truth anyway, that cant be true. — Wosret

Hmm, okay, but surely we can scratch out the soul since it's ultimately a metaphor, what is important is the underlying reality that it signifies. That reality would still exist whether one is a materialist or whatever else because what one thinks does not change reality.

Truth cannot be man-made for the simple reason that man isn't God and doesn't control reality. We notice this from first-hand experience - things don't always go as we wish they did. So truth is really our way of signifying what is the case independently of our desires.

Morality cannot be man-made because there are certain psychological structures which are given, which pretty much exist in all people, whether they are aware of them or not. And again we notice this from experience, both in ourselves and in others. These aspects are invariant.

I'm not sure how productive or useful it is to speculate if reality was some other way, I don't think that makes much sense since all our meaning is given by reality as it actually is.

There is indeed nothing stopping you from just whimsically deciding to be good and altruistic, but that isnt the problem, that problem is that that isnt actually better or worse than anything else. It also isnt very rational unless it is more personally beneficial to me than anything else. Its rationally at best an opportunistic strategy.

If you are not acting in accordance with your whims, why are you acting? I would argue that friendship is a basic human need. Perhaps we all engage in manipulation and deception to the extent that it serves us, but it doesn’t serve us to do anything that would cause others to see us in a negative light. Perhaps fear is how you know that the best way to serve yourself is not to be selfish.

Thats the implication of what you said.

Then you ought to if you could get away with it?

If values are subjective and arbitrary, there is no ought.

Morality cannot be man-made because there are certain psychological structures which are given, which pretty much exist in all people, whether they are aware of them or not. And again we notice this from experience, both in ourselves and in others. These aspects are invariant. — Agustino

What psychological structures are you referring to? If there were exceptions, would these people be subject to the same moral laws?

What is?

If truth and morality are man made — Wosret

Hi Wosret, it's an interesting question. I think these days laws have been layered upon laws to such an extent that rather than being a moral guardrail, they are a tangled web. And there are the spiders that run across the web, using it to their own ends - to protect their own interests and prosecute their adversaries.

If we strip it right back though, I think that the fundamental laws are not manufactured for personal gain, but arise from the gut. For example stealing from those that cannot protect themselves is a crime that was made a crime because of our ability to empathize with the victim.

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

Consequences. Someone will beat you to a pulp or call the police eventually. Taking everything you want from everyone is fine in a world of pacifists, but that isn't the world you find yourself in, is it?

What psychological structures are you referring to? — Neva

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

If there were exceptions, would these people be subject to the same moral laws? — Neva

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.

It also isnt very rational unless it is more personally beneficial to me than anything else. — Wosret

Why do you take your own personal benefit to be the "rational" thing to pursue? It seems to me that on an a priori and purely logical basis it is no more rational than to pursue the other's benefit.

What I'm trying to get at is that your determination that pursuing your own personal benefit is the rational thing to do is a superficial element that actually emerges from deeper metaphysical & psychological beliefs that structure your understanding and behaviour. That is required to provide the logical link between reason on the one hand and self-interest on the other.

So to investigate this, these underlying structures must be unearthed.

So, "I should do X" means "man has imposed the obligation to do X" — Michael

No, it's means "I should follow the obligation to do X".

Why should you act according to your benefits and motivations in the first place?

No, it's means "I should follow the obligation to do X". — BlueBanana

The premise is "If truth and morality are man made, and not objective". Given this premise, what does "one ought not X" mean? That man has imposed a prescription against X.

There is still the hypothetical oughts. They just aren't binding in absence of motivation.

As long as you're saying that there is no reason why someone shouldn't, and are fine with that. You have no objection to it.

The premise is "If truth and morality are man made, and not objective". — Michael

For the claim to be correct, the premise should be "morality is man made, and not objective, and we should follow it".

I don't think that laws are analogous to moral precepts, though clearly related. I will say though, that most laws are based in a theory, and historical precedent, and usually those theories involve innate value of human beings, and their autonomy. Neither empathy, nor compassion and such emotions are impartial, they inherently take a side.

For the claim to be correct, the premise should be "morality is man made, and not objective, and we should follow them". — BlueBanana

I'm pointing out that this kind of talk is confused. Given the premise that obligations are man-made, it doesn't make sense to then include this extra notion of (objective) obligation.

If obligations are man-made then that one has an obligation just is that man has imposed this obligation.

It is the world I find myself in. I qualified if you could get away with it. This question was posed in the republic I believe it was (one of Plato's dialogues), one of the discussants suggests that if one were to find a ring that made one invisible, and one could get away with whatever they wanted while maintaining their reputation, then it is desirable to do so, and most people would do so. If morality is just prudence, then it indeed is for the weak and incompetent.

Well, yes, reason only tells you how to accomplish things, and what will come of things, this is why I said based on my preferences, and whims. So I hold that based on my preferences and whims as motivations, it is more rational, as the results are in my favor. You can't just isolate one thing I say, removed from everything else I've said.