Valuing reality is a form of pleasure. — Devans99

No it isn't. And even if it was, that would be irrelevant.

If the pleasure machine cannot give that then the pleasure machine is not working according to specification. — Devans99

No, the pleasure machine just needs to give maximum pleasure. Do you understand what maximum pleasure is? Because you don't seem to.

No it isn't. And even if it was, that would be irrelevant. — S

It is a form of pleasure else people would not be inclined towards doing it; we do things that are pleasurable to us (in the widest possible sense).

And the pleasure machine needs to replicate this form of pleasure else its not doing its job.

Then everyone excepting the very stupid would get in.

It is a form of pleasure else people would not be inclined towards doing it; we do things that are pleasurable to us (in the widest possible sense). — Devans99

No, you can call it a form of pleasure as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit. Whether that gives them pleasure is beside the point.

And the pleasure machine needs to replicate this form of pleasure else its not doing its job. — Devans99

You don't understand what it needs to do to be doing its job. You don't understand what maximum pleasure means.

Then everyone excepting the very stupid would get in. — Devans99

You are very stupid to think that.

No, you can call it a form of pleasure as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit. Whether that gives them pleasure is beside the point. — S

'People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit' - IE they get some form of pleasure from them.

How come you get everything wrong? It's especially galling as you always assume you have everything right :(

'People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit' - IE they get some form of pleasure from them. — Devans99

No, not in other words. That's not an acceptable use of that abbreviation. This isn't the first time that you've made that mistake, either.

Also, how come you get everything wrong? It's especially galling as you always assume you have everything right.

Either there are two versions of logic or you are pigheaded, it might be the 2nd.

I give up on this conversation :(

I can’t review what doesn’t exist.

There is one version of logic, and you're not very good at it.

It's probably for the best for you give to up on this conversion if you're just going to repeat your rigid and narrow-minded stance over and over again without addressing any of the underlying problems. You're known for doing this. Doesn't that reputation bother you?

I can’t review what doesn’t exist. — praxis

You can review what does. So are you going to do so or not? Do you derive pleasure from dancing around the issue?

Nurture influences, but can't provide morals. — Terrapin Station

Of course it provides morals. You wouldn’t have a life at all, much less a moral life, without nurturing.

Going back to the cloned baby S scenario, the cloned S would have no choice in what moral order was imparted to him. Depending on the culture, it might impart an order where cannibalism is acceptable or an order where it’s not.

x influencing y is different than x being identical to y.

x ≠ morals
y ≠ morals
x + y = morals

Do you derive pleasure from dancing around the issue? — S

I’m interested in your response to what I wrote.

I’m interested in your response to what I wrote. — praxis

I don't believe you, because you aren't doing anything about that, except try to manipulate me. And I have little toleration for that. If you're interested, then help yourself. You don't need me for that. You just need to put more effort in.

lol, I believe they call this projection.

Of course it provides morals — praxis

Of course it doesn't. How can something be a moral stance when there's not even any disposition towards allowing versus not allowing some behavior?

lol, I believe they call this project. — praxis

You mean "projection". Another highly amusing example of your lack of attention.

Going back to the cloned baby S scenario, the cloned S would have no choice in what moral order was imparted to him. Depending on the culture, it might impart an order where cannibalism is acceptable or an order where it’s not. — praxis

It's a complete myth that, in that scenario, my clone couldn't reach a different judgement about cannibalism than that of his culture.

How can something be a moral stance when there's not even any disposition towards allowing versus not allowing some behavior? — Terrapin Station

Again, I’ve not denied disposition. I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist?

Conversely, are you a cannibal or do you have the potential to be someone who genuinely feels that cannibalism is not immoral, and can happily munch away?

Again, I’ve not denied disposition. I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist? — praxis

Here was what I claimed that you disagreed with. Nurture doesn't actually provide moral stances in any sense, because we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world. To disagree with that, you can't backpeddle to focusing on social influence again. The disagreement isn't over social influence. The disagreement is over whether you can literally receive moral stances socially. x influencing y doesn't amount to x being identical to y.

I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that? — praxis

I'm still waiting for you to address what I've actually said, and to properly respond to my criticism. Why can't this be explained through biology, of which evolution and neuroscience are a part?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist? — praxis

Using the term "natural" just opens up a can of worms. It doesn't seem helpful.

Conversely, are you a cannibal or do you have the potential to be someone who genuinely feels that cannibalism is not immoral, and can happily munch away? — praxis

However I answer that question, I don't think that it would demonstrate anything of logical relevance to your line of argument. The dots don't connect.

Here was what I claimed that you disagreed with. Nurture doesn't actually provide moral stances in any sense, because we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world. — Terrapin Station

I wouldn’t have disagreed with something that I can’t determine the meaning of.

I wouldn’t have disagreed with something that I can’t determine the meaning of. — praxis

Okay, then let's make sure we understand what the other person is claiming before we agree or disagree.

What part of what you quoted are you unsure about?

You could start with the meaning of this part:

we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world

Sure, so earlier you brought up the nature/nurture distinction. ("The source of morals is both nature and nurture.") We're talking about biology and social interaction there, basically. If you substitute those terms in what I wrote, we'd have, "we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the social-interaction [rather than the] biological world," or in other words, we only have dispositions for or against any behavior in the biological world. You can't have a disposition for or against--basically, a judgment or a preference for/against--any behavior in the social-interaction world.

I can't tell whether that is merely incorrect, nonsense, or complete gibberish.

I can't tell whether that is merely nonsense, or complete gibberish. — Janus

Again, you'd have to be a bit more specific about what seems like nonsense/gibberish to you. Presumably not all of it, because presumably you're not stumped by this sentence, for example: "Sure, so earlier you brought up the nature/nurture distinction."

If you substitute those terms in what I wrote, we'd have, "we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the social-interaction [rather than the] biological world," or in other words, we only have dispositions for or against any behavior in the biological world. You can't have a disposition for or against--basically, a judgment or a preference for/against--any behavior in the social-interaction world. — Terrapin Station

This.

Sure, so start with the first phrase you quoted.

"If you substitute those terms in what I wrote"

You are not familiar with the idea of substituting one set of terms for another?

Or did you quote that part superfluously? I mean, I hope we don't need to start with explaining words like "if," or combinations like "If you" etc.

That's merely a preamble to the "content" in question. Why ask for confirmation of the obvious?

Why can't this be explained through biology, of which evolution and neuroscience are a part? — S

I don't believe that biology and neuroscience are advanced enough. No neuroscientist or biologist could examine human tissues and determine why some people are, for example, conservative and others are liberal.