I haven't got the patience to be dealing with uncharitable nonsense about worms, dogs and critters as though it bears any relevance whatsoever to what I was getting at... — S
You must admit that it’s kinda funny that you applied experimental results from critter studies to human morality. — praxis
Special pleading, ad hom, gratuitous assertion, and moving goalposts — creativesoul
So why would that be any less the source of morality, per the way that you're using the term "source," than any other cause you're suggesting, where the cause isn't itself morality? — Terrapin Station
What makes a cause adequate or not? — Terrapin Station
I'm not sure what makes a cause adequate or not. What would an adequate cause look like? — Merkwurdichliebe
I do know, however, that which makes an explanation adequate is coherence, consequence, and maybe a little authority. — Merkwurdichliebe
So "the big bang" isn't coherent, has no consequence or authority? I must not know what those words refer to very well. — Terrapin Station
The big bang is a cosmological event. How are you using it to explain the source of morality? Explain yourself. — Merkwurdichliebe
Should we list all of the causes/preconditions? Wouldn't that be encyclopedia-length? — Terrapin Station
How in the world is the social stuff supposed to explain morality in a way that the big bang doesn't? — Terrapin Station
Shouldn't we focus at least as much on a phenomenon as the phenomenon rather than just talking about preconditions for it? — Terrapin Station
Morals consist entirely of thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. They are one kind of thought/belief. All thought/belief share a common basic core. They all have the same basic elemental constituency, so to speak. As a result of having knowledge of the basic minimalist criterion of all thought/belief, there is ground to talk of the origen of one particular kind. Some would agree that there is no stronger justificatory ground than a conceptual scheme following from and/or built upon uncontentious true premisses that has no actual nor conceivable/imaginable examples to the contrary. — creativesoul
I can agree with the utility of assuming everything up to this point... — Merkwurdichliebe
In the creativesoul sense, I might argue that socio-cultural factors stand as the primary ethical influences on the thinking/believing individual. In effect, ethics are primarily apprehended from an external source, yet it appears as though the ethical only becomes existentially charged in the thinking/believing individual. I feel that it is somewhere in the internalization of morality tha the source of morals lies. (At this point, we are far removed from any cosmological or neurological explanation, as they have previously been synthesized into the notion of thought/belief, of which morality represents one type.)
But, maybe I'm jumping the gun. — Merkwurdichliebe
Morals consist entirely of thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. They are one kind of thought/belief. All thought/belief share a common basic core. They all have the same basic elemental constituency, so to speak. As a result of having knowledge of the basic minimalist criterion of all thought/belief, there is ground to talk of the origen of one particular kind. Some would agree that there is no stronger justificatory ground than a conceptual scheme following from and/or built upon uncontentious true premisses that has no actual nor conceivable/imaginable examples to the contrary.
— creativesoul
I would agree. This would represent the bedrock upon which all manner of conceptual edifice could be constructed. But it seems a bit idealistic. — Merkwurdichliebe
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.