Ridicule emboldens and further empowers that which you seem intent upon weakening... — creativesoul
Ridicule emboldens and further empowers that which you seem intent upon weakening...
— creativesoul
Not always — VagabondSpectre
Always in the relevant cases. — creativesoul
The examples you give are "moral decisions", but the values which support them are not widely agreed upon at all, which is what makes them easily contestable and weak.
BBC’s Asian network, 1 in 10 of the 500 young south Asians surveyed said they would condone any murder of someone who threatened their family’s honor.
"reason" is the value; the why of the ought.
I think morality arises somewhere in the distinction between justice and utility, where some actions we take may be viewed as being just but not serving a public sense of utility (serving the public's interest). Societies where religious and familial values are manifest in daily life view what is just differently, and not primarily based on a notion of utility. — Cavacava
Wikipedia also suggests that in some societies, very little, if any social stigma is attached to honor killings. Defense of the family honor is considered just in these societies.
I don't think it is a weak claim, even Christ brought up honor killings. It is an established tradition some societies, part of a very different belief system. So how would that conversation go...I don't think it would go well or very far. It is perhaps in a way similar to the conversation between a slave owner and an abolitionist in the 18th century.
Old traditions don't change readily or all that rationally, unless new value systems are systematically enforced. Ultimately, I think it was establishment of a multiplicity of laws which have evolved over many generations that have changed public opinion, and continue to shape our considerations — Cavacava
Reason has no value other than its own inherent utility, but what is moral/just is not always what is most reasonable. — Cavacava
What people think is moral is often quite unreasonable (see: all superstitions that have moral ramifications). Sometimes starting values are inherently unreasonable (pleasing god) and sometimes methods are unreasonable (honor killing), and sometimes both (honor killing to please god), and so I would posit that such positions, being unreasonable, are not actually moral by rational standards.
The most reasonable course of action, the one with the most utility, in this situation would have been to lie to the man, which might have saved French lives, but Hampshire could not compromise his ow integrity (read honor) and lie to the man about such a thing. Can you question his moral position. — Cavacava
I don't support a naturalistic, causal explanation of this process.
Not sure what you mean with the last statement. I think we agree on the rest.
I think the identification reason=utility=justice, leaves out some critical moral aspects of what it is to be a moral agent. — Cavacava
Always in the relevant cases.
— creativesoul
That seems like a fast and loose rule. What makes you say this? — VagabondSpectre
↪creativesoul
I don't support a naturalistic, causal explanation of this process.
Not sure what you mean with the last statement. I think we agree on the rest.
I mean that I don't think that evolutionary explanations, or explanations of actions which rely on the physical happenings in the brain, or its chemical composition are explanations of moral behavior. They may illuminate what is happening or even provide a basis upon which to view actions, but they do not explain why people act morally or immorally. — Cavacava
Because you supported your "not always" claim with something other than the case we were discussing. — creativesoul
We were discussing divine command theory. Suicide folk in particular. Yanking someone's trousers down ought be more memorable, unless perhaps you've become desensitized... — creativesoul
You're sorely mistaken.
Ridicule has no place being used against someone who cannot yet distinguish between their thought/belief system(worldview) and themselves. For those who would willingly die for their belief system, their entire self-worth and self-identity are wrapped up within that system...
Separating them from it requires care... genuine care. — creativesoul
Morals derived from some kind of divine command theory are rationally unreliable because we have no rational access to any real set of divine moral commands. The real world is populated by diverse and mutually exclusive moral systems built from allegedly revealed and eternal knowledge, and most of them are want to arbitrarily mutate according to internal and external pressures. The fundamental adherence to such moral systems is hubris at best, and at worst genocidal. We should look elsewhere to found morality. — VagabondSpectre
I suggest looking to all moral systems as a means to identify and isolate the morally relevant and/or significant common denominators.
Common ground renders ridicule unnecessary and opens the door for reasonable more respectful dialogue. — creativesoul
You cannot reliably find common ground with a divine moral system when that system is founded on an irrational starting premise: — VagabondSpectre
Could you provide an example? — Samuel Lacrampe
At conception, we are all void of any and all thought and belief...moral belief notwithstanding. Some thought and belief are extremely complex. Others are not. Calculus cannot be understood prior to understanding arithmetic. Moral belief systems cannot be understood as such by an agent until s/he has one to talk about. Thought and belief begins simply and gains in it's complexity. We all adopt our first worldview.
Agree with this so far? — creativesoul
where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? — Matthew Gould
Suppose that we have evolved to behave in a certain way.
It remains an open question as to whether we ought behave in that way.
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.