many people might let the fact that one of the potential victims is gay affect their judgment. Reason might be the factor that made them reconsider this. Or is that what you were saying? — T Clark

Yes, that's why I put that example in, for interest. By my belief, the same moral motivation would be at play in a society which hates gay people, as one which treated them equally. The only difference would be the society of homophobes erroneously thinks that's being gay is a non-arbitrary reason. Once they find it that it is indeed arbitrary, it will cease to make a difference. To me, the underlying moral that you shouldn't consider people less worthy for arbitrary reasons is just a gut feeling most people have, nothing rational about it.

Yes, that's why I put that example in, for interest. By my belief, the same moral motivation would be at play in a society which hates gay people, as one which treated them equally. The only difference would be the society of homophobes erroneously thinks that's being gay is a non-arbitrary reason. Once they find it that it is indeed arbitrary, it will cease to make a difference. To me, the underlying moral that you shouldn't consider people less worthy for arbitrary reasons is just a gut feeling most people have, nothing rational about it. — Pseudonym

We're pretty much on the same page, although I think a society of homophobes could easily decide, rationally, that unfairness or worse to homosexuals is not immoral. In my view, the basis for prejudice, just like that for morality, is not rational. Just because a moral code is based on compassion and influenced by reason, doesn't mean it will come to the same moral understanding you do.

Feminist philosophy is not discussed much here except to ridicule it. — T Clark

If that is the case, then it's your loss--you'll be missing out on one of the more important philosophical movements of the past century as well as miss the origins of many ideas that are commonly accepted in the discipline to this day--such as the relinquishing of the mind/heart dualism.

But, Clark, just like with the Trolley problem, it just won't do to dismiss a concept, scenario, theory, etc. out of hand just because you don't like it--you still have the responsibility to address it. If not, I'm just going to assume you have nothing to really argue against it and that it is your way of ceding the argument. :)

On the other hand, it is not a feminist idea - Schopenhauer said this in 1840 — T Clark

Note, I never said they were the first, or the only ones--but they were the most influential and successful.

In any case, I'm waiting for you to address my actual argument.

Yes, we may well differ at that point, but a relaxing change to have agreed with someone thus far. I do think that we can say with some certainty that you and I will have the same gut feeling about moral motivations, because you and I are both human and it does seem to be the case that humans are remarkably similar at these basic levels. Unfortunately advertising works, hypnotism works, auto suggestion, any number of other mind trick and psychological predictions. They all work because basically we're all pretty similar. Morality is one of the many areas which are complicated by the addition of environmental and rational factors so it's much harder to test directly, but given that most things tested that way seem to be fairly homogeneous, I don't see why the gut feelings guiding our morality would be any different.

Its the same with art, music, food, sensory pleasures... Given the range of things it's theoretically possible to like, the range of things most people actually do like is remarkably narrow.

If that is the case, then it's your loss--you'll be missing out on one of the more important philosophical movements of the past century as well as miss the origins of many ideas that are commonly accepted in the discipline to this day--such as the relinquishing of the mind/heart dualism.

But, Clark, just like with the Trolley problem, it just won't do to dismiss a concept, scenario, theory, etc. out of hand just because you don't like it--you still have the responsibility to address it. If not, I'm just going to assume you have nothing to really argue against it and that it is your way of ceding the argument. :) — NKBJ

It's like you're looking for a fight. I said - feminist philosophy doesn't show up here much, you should start some discussions. You will get some snideness because 64.23% of the posters here have the emotional maturity of middle schoolers, even though many of them are as old, or older, that I am. You won't get snideness from me unless you are as condescending as you sometimes have been in previous posts.

In any case, I'm waiting for you to address my actual argument. — NKBJ

I thought we'd come to an understanding, although we might disagree a bit on the specific roles for compassion and reason. Let me know what issues are still outstanding.

I do think that we can say with some certainty that you and I will have the same gut feeling about moral motivations, because you and I are both human and it does seem to be the case that humans are remarkably similar at these basic levels. — Pseudonym

Agreed.

It's like you're looking for a fight. I said - feminist philosophy doesn't show up here much, you should start some discussions. You will get some snideness because 64.23% of the posters here have the emotional maturity of middle schoolers, even though many of them are as old, or older, that I am. You won't get snideness from me unless you are as condescending as you sometimes have been in previous posts. — T Clark

I'm unaware of any moments of condescension in any of my posts. But I have noted an aggressive tone in your posts towards me. I've told you repeatedly, I'm not interested in that, so please, just stop.

And if you do want to address something, perhaps you could finally respond to my criticism of dichotomizing reason and emotion--which I still think you do. Or at least you have not clearly explained when or how reason does come into play to establish morality?

Here are my conclusions from our part in this discussion:

[1] You and I generally agree that both feeling and reason have a place in morality. We have differences in emphasis.

[2] I think you're condescending.

[3] You think I'm aggressive.

[4] We've taken this discussion about as far as we can for now.

We've taken this discussion about as far as we can for now. — T Clark

Fine with me.