Paine was an aside... I'm not even sure of his Ethics or if he had any. When I was reading him, it was all about motivation and attitude about the role of government, notably what the conditions were for rejecting the government.

:wink:

Anyway... I need to think a few things through here. Some clarity is needed to ensure we're all on the same page. Given the 'depth' of the argumentative basis(thought/belief), and all of the different jargon popping in and out of existence here... :halo:

A bridge of mutual understanding needs to be maintained. We've a good start, I think.

We look at what's left and assess it's relevance/adequacy for deducing a universal criterion.
— creativesoul

I thought the point of your sour grapes example, in the context of its use, had to do with trying to establish the universal criterion of weather or not morals require other sentient beings.

Maybe I misconstrued the point. In any case, grapes aren’t sentient. What do you think the moral of the sour grapes fable is, just out of curiosity? — praxis

I want you to follow me here. I'll come back to this later if need be. There's another underlying crucial matter. We need to bring it more into the forefront of our considerations here.

Methodology. It will cover this as well.

Philosophy is so versatile in its methodology, it is rendered useless. — Merkwurdichliebe

There are some historical methods that are useless for taking proper account of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our account.

There are some philosophical methods that arrive at all sorts of gibberish and/or otherwise preposterous conclusions.

Some. Not all.

It does not follow that all uses are useless. Our saying and/or arriving at that doesn't make much sense to begin with. I know you and Janus are playing around with rejecting the law of contradiction, but doing so will inevitably result in equivocation and/or some other kind of incoherence.

Agree?

...

Sometimes you have to smash it to pieces and reconstruct it, other times you have to throw it far into the distance and rediscover it. — Merkwurdichliebe

We talk about smashing things into pieces that are able to be smashed into pieces. Moral things aren't such things. Moral things do indeed consist of other things, of simpler things. All of these elementary constituents/ingredients exist in their entirety prior to becoming part of one of the multitude of different things that we've chosen to call "moral".

All moral things are about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.



Do you follow me? There are no exceptions. Every example confirms.

I'm just taking account of the fable and it's moral lesson. The only reason it needed to be invoked here was as an exception to a criterion for what counts as "moral" - in kind. A criterion for what counts as being moral - in kind - that claims that all morals are about considering behaviour towards others is rendered inadequate by virtue of conflicting with the way things are. It cannot take proper account of The Fox and the Grapes. That's a story with a moral. That moral is about one's own thought/belief and/or attitude. It helps promote self-reflection. It's not about considering behaviour towards others. Thus, the proposed criterion is rejected as inadequate, insufficient and/or lacking explanatory power. It could easily and sensible be called "false"...

Some morals are about considering behaviour towards others. Not all. — creativesoul

Some morals are about considering behaviour towards others. Not all.

I’m not at all convinced, if that matters. Your fable fails to illustrate this point... and this is not an expression of sour grapes. — praxis

What determines whether or not The Fox and the Grapes has the lesson that it has been said to have since it's very inception? That lesson is called "the moral of the story". It is a moral lesson. It is not about nor does it consider behaviour towards others.

Your agreement isn't necessary here... is it?

It(the story) is existentially dependent upon others for it is language based... That's irrelevant regarding whether or not all moral things consider behaviour towards another. They don't, and the story is itself a piece of evidence that falsifies the criterion.

What determines whether or not The Fox and the Grapes has the moral that it has been said to have since it's very inception? — creativesoul

The depth of consideration and values of those interpreting it.

Your agreement isn't necessary here... is it? — creativesoul

Never.

If It doesn’t belong to a group then there is no moral. — praxis

I agree with this. The fable belongs to the community of language users which first conceived it and all those who continue it's use via reporting upon it.

A correct/accurate/trustworthy report will take account of it's original meaning. The meaning is the moral of the story. The moral of that story does not consider behaviour towards others. It is called and has been called "the moral of the story" since it's inception.

I cannot explain this in many more ways...

Are we in agreement yet?

Interpretation is always of something already meaningful. All interpretation is the attribution of meaning. Not all attribution of meaning is interpretation.

How's my existential quantification coming along?

Just to be clear here...

Do you realize that I'm not offering moral judgment here? Calling it "the moral of the story" does not require my approval/disapproval of the thought, belief, and/or behaviour any more than calling the place I get my gas a "gas station" requires my approval of that namesake. I'm offering an account... an exhaustive description(within the realm of relevancy/germaneness) of what all things called "moral" have in common.

Later we can get into which ones ought be put to use and how/why.

A correct report will take account of it's original meaning. The meaning is the moral of the story.

I cannot explain this in many more ways...

Are we in agreement yet? — creativesoul

I don’t think this line of thought is important to the project of determining the source of morals. I’ve found it interesting though.

I don’t think this line of thought is important to the project of determining the source of morals. — praxis

Seems to be of utmost importance to me(by my lights). If we claim that all things moral are about considering behaviour towards others, then we're mistaken if some morals are not about considering behaviour towards others. Considering one's own personal outlook in a situation where there are no others around - such as is the case with the moral of The Fox and the Grapes - is not considering behaviour towards others.

Therefore, the criterion is mistaken. There are actual morals that contradict what the criterion claims that all things moral have in common. The criterion makes a false claim about some morals. It cannot properly account for all morals.

"All morals are about considering behaviour towards others" is false.

I don’t think this line of thought is important to the project of determining the source of morals. I’ve found it interesting though. — praxis

Well, we differ here and we agree. I've found this conversation to be quite interesting. It's nice having you around as well. Dissenting opinions are welcome.

Cheers. If I could buy you a drink... we'd all be buzzed!

:wink:

We talk about smashing things into pieces that are able to be smashed into pieces. Moral things aren't such things. Moral things do indeed consist of other things, of simpler things. All of these elementary constituents/ingredients exist in their entirety prior to becoming part of one of the multitude of different things that we've chosen to call "moral".

All moral things are about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. — creativesoul

:up:

A bridge of mutual understanding needs to be maintained. We've a good start, I think. — creativesoul

This is my primary mandate. I think we might accidentally prove something else, than what is meant here.

Cheers. If I could buy you a drink... we'd all be buzzed!

:wink: — creativesoul

@praxis We've (me & @creativesoul) have been drinking for a while now. You should have a drink too.

Well, we differ here and we agree. I've found this conversation to be quite interesting. It's nice having you around as well. Dissenting opinions are welcome. — creativesoul

That MF @praxis never addresses me. we probably agree too much.

What the fuck do I know? In my ignorance, it appears to be quite effective.

All moral things are about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. — creativesoul

This is the existential constant. What more qualification is needed?

But it's possible being delighted; I think... Then sayed mesiah "beautiful things in the future" isn't truth; patience be good;

Considering one's own personal outlook in a situation where there are no others around - such as is the case with the moral of The Fox and the Grapes - is not considering behavior towards others. — creativesoul

I'd like to resolve this, but it's fine if you'd like to move on.

I've identified two morals in the fable, which are insufficiencies in self-reflection and a good work ethic. The traditional interpretation is that it's just about a good work ethic, I understand. I believe the lack of self-reflection is the more significant moral, personally.

Regarding the traditional moral, there is nothing wrong with seeking low-lying fruit. In fact, it may be more ethical to stay within your natural niche, rather than working hard to expand it, because you may be disrupting the natural balance. Other species, and perhaps eventually yourself, could pay a price for disrupting the natural order too aggressively.

The implied work ethic that we should work hard to exploit natural resources beyond our natural reach is obviously cultural in origin, and actually rather disturbing. And it's meant to program children!

That the fox considers itself a failure means that it has adopted the work ethic and has failed to live up to it. So, not its own outlook and not failing itself but the expectations of those who imparted the ethic. The failure only matters in relation to others, because as I've previously mentioned, her energy might be better spent moving on and seeking low-lying fruit elsewhere. Her lack of industriousness is of concern to society and not necessarily to herself.

Incidentally, there's a compelling argument that hunter-gatherers had to be forced into agrarian life because it sucked compared to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, at least for many hundreds of years.

We might also consider the meaning of "behavior towards others." Clearly, we can express behavior towards others that are not in the vicinity of ourselves, and our successes and failures effect others. It might be claimed that the fox's failure doesn't effect anyone else, but if that's the case, why does the fox need to contrive the fiction that the grapes are sour? If it's to console himself, why does he need consolation? We don't console ourselves with comforting fictions every time we feel frustration and failure. The fox is attempting to save face, to put it colloquially, and this relates to others. If there are no other actual witnesses it could just be an ego driven habit. If the fox were truly a solitary animal it would have no such habit, or it would eventually fade away if the fox became truly solitary.

The fox's moral code includes a particular work ethic that it betrayed. It doesn't matter if anyone else witnessed it or was directly effected. It's like breaking a promise that you've made to the society that you belong to. If it's a good promise to make then you've let down your community in whatever actual benefit the promise is supposed to encourage. You've also diminished the value of the promise itself by your unfaithfulness. The community bond is weakened.

That MF praxis never addresses me. — Merkwurdichliebe

Good day to you, Sir. :razz:

I'd like to resolve this, but it's fine if you'd like to move on.

I've identified two morals in the fable... — praxis

Good. You agree that there is at least one moral to the story. That's all I'm saying here. That moral, while being existentially dependent upon others as a result of it's existential dependency upon language, is not about considering behaviour towards others. It's just not. I'm not making it up. I'm simply offering an accurate account of it. So...

Not all morals consider behaviour towards others.

I'm not ignoring the explanations and/or entailments that you've just offered. It's just not time for that yet. I hope you'll be around for that too.

After we sort out the origen, we can compare/contrast different moral thought/belief in a comparative value assessment in terms of what's the best way to think, believe, and/or act in some situation or other...

Right now, we are still laying the groundwork.

You agree that there is at least one moral to the story. That's all I'm saying here. — creativesoul

Not exactly, you’re also saying that it’s not about considering behaviour towards others. You must see that that’s where we disagree, or I don’t follow your meaning.

I imagine it should be simple to explain. You might describe your meaning and perhaps give examples of moral ‘behavior towards others’ and real-life moral behavior not towards others.

You agree that there is at least one moral to the story. That's all I'm saying here.
— creativesoul

Not exactly... — praxis

You said that there were two. There are two(on your interpretation).

...you’re also saying that it’s not about considering behaviour towards others. You must see that that’s where we disagree, or I don’t follow your meaning — praxis

Who and/or what determines the moral of the story?

The community of language users who first imagined the fox in a human situation and recorded the story along with it's moral. The moral is a life lesson. A lesson that is meant to guide one's future behaviour should they find themselves in the fox's situation. The moral is don't be like the fox. Don't adapt an attitude that what is not currently within one's reach is not worth having.

That does not consider behaviour towards others.

So what if instead of a grape the Fox was unsuccessful in seducing a potential mate who rebuffed him?

That's not what the story is about.