A bit regarding a couple of key points. — creativesoul

Please, point them out. I'm ignorant to them.

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.) — Merkwurdichliebe

That last claim is spot on. I don't like the notion of 'synthesized into'.

If all thought/belief share a common core, and cosmological and neurological explanations are kinds of thought/belief, then they too share a common core.

Morality(rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour;thought, belief, and behaviour in more complex moralities) is always first adopted. Not all thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour is existentially dependent upon language acquisition. All codes of conduct are. All thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are moral - in kind. That is precisely what they all have in common that makes them what they are as opposed to other kinds of thought/belief.

Some moral thought/belief is prior to language acquisition.

Is that Spock logic: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" — Merkwurdichliebe

Can't be coming from me. Prefixing the term "truth" with the term "the" is not a practice of mine.

Btw, great job reframing the issue! — Merkwurdichliebe

Still in process.

Some moral thought/belief is prior to language acquisition. — creativesoul

Can you give me an example?

Can't be coming from me. Prefixing the term "truth" with the term "the" is not a practice of mine. — creativesoul

If I could, I would prefix ∨ term with the term "the". :joke:

Can you give me an example? — Merkwurdichliebe

No non and/or pre-linguistic human likes being physically harmed by another. All of us find it unacceptable. We all draw correlations between the perpetrator's behavior and the autonomous emotional discontent that follows. We know that we do not like it. It is the attribution and/or recognition of causality. Similar to learning that touching fire causes pain.

If all thought/belief share a common core, and cosmological and neurological explanations are kinds of thought/belief, then they too share a common core. — creativesoul

I understand what you are saying. The cosmological and neurological are type of thought belief too, as in they have zero a priori significance. Thought/belief, as we use it here is the bedrock for all further investigation. In this case, you seem to be making an obvious distinction between the the neurological, cosmological, and ethical. I am inclined to think that they would figure as independent categories whose pathways of rationale incidentally intersect on occasion. Although each would be unique in its content, all would share a basic conceptual framework based on an incontestable premise.

Although each would be unique in its content, all would share a basic conceptual framework... — Merkwurdichliebe

Elemental constituency is shared. A common core. The same process.

Conceptual frameworks are existentially dependent upon language. Outlines of thought/belief are always existentially dependent upon language. That which is being taken account of is not.

So it is a more primitive morality, more closely related to the autonomic processes of the nervous system, whereas a more sophisticated mode of morality would render the autonomic process so insignificant as to bypass any potential effect it may have on subsequent behavior or disposition.

Word is born my man. I can learn a lot from you. :up:

I understand what you are saying. The cosmological and neurological are type of thought belief too, as in they have zero a priori significance — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm not at all concerned with a priori significance.

Word is born my man. I can learn a lot from you. :up: — Merkwurdichliebe

We'll see about that. Ideally, we'll all be learning...

If anything we are discussing can be accused of having a priori significance, it is the notion of thought/belief. 8n relation to the tabula rasa of thought/belief, any cosmological or neurobiological explanation are as much a matter of a posterior understanding as any explanation concerning the ethical or its source.

You modest sunavabitch! :grin:

Moral simply is the absolutes of good and bad; which is to say, their combined form, born alongside them.

The goodness and badness of things, is not good and/or bad, but an applied aesthetic; a layer of paint.

Moral conduct is without intent.
Simply acting right, and not because it is right.

So what is the source of moral? Being.

So what is the source of moral? Being. — Shamshir

I think that is overly-simplified, and I'm the king of oversimplification, just ask @S.

Is there a thing such as oversimplification? Probably.
Is oversimplification overly simple or just right? Depends on if you're looking at it or something else.

Well, to be looking at it is something quite different from overly simplifying, despite how difficult it may appear to be.

Let me phrase it this way:
Oversimplification and overcomplication are like zoom out and zoom in.
Less pixels vs more pixels; but essentially the same picture.

Versatile approach.

Don't let me get off topic. Let's experiment.

If we establish (not really) an incontestable premise in thought/belief, then let's just pretend, how would we begin to flesh out a method?

Perhaps you can enlighten me here with a hypothetical test run. And then, perhaps, run the "source of morals" through it. I'm willing to offer my ignorance to the effort (add. I mean that in the sense that I have nothing else to offer - I am a simple man.

Shouldn't we focus at least as much on a phenomenon as the phenomenon rather than just talking about preconditions for it? — Terrapin Station

Not when we're talking about it. You are getting religious.

Not when we're talking about it. — Merkwurdichliebe

We shouldn't focus on x qua x when we're talking about it. We should focus on the preconditions for x. Ohhhkay.

There's no disagreement concerning how we come to adopt our first morals(original language acquisition). — creativesoul

Actually, there's definitely disagreement over that. There's no way that language (especially about morals) would come before morals.

In general, human thought/belief about morals has grown in complexity — creativesoul

I don't agree with that, either.

Morals aren't just physical. — creativesoul

Or that. With that one, I don't believe that anything exists that isn't just physical.

I think a multi-varied analysis from the perspective of many disciplines can reveal a lot about any topic. We just need to refrain from committing the reductionist error of equating the explanation with the thing we are trying to explain. — Merkwurdichliebe

What we need to be more careful about is equating arbitrary causes with the phenomenon in question.

I don't believe that anything exists that isn't just physical. — Terrapin Station

Couldn’t we also say that nothing exists that isn’t just mental?

You could if you wanted to be wrong. ;-)

“Anything” requires a mind to conceive it. Without a mind there would be nothing to distinguish anything. There wouldn’t be anything or nothing.

That's like saying that anything requires a camera to photograph it. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that only cameras exist.

What we need to be more careful about is equating arbitrary causes with the phenomenon in question. — Terrapin Station

That is precisely what a multi-varied analysis would prevent.

Btw. Such a hardcore physicalist as you shouldn't mention the phenomenological, all phenomena is a product of the mind. This only makes you sound uninformed.

That's like saying that anything requires a camera to photograph it. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that only cameras exist. — Terrapin Station

Terrible analogy.