I'm simply saying that if one makes true statements about the source of their own moral convictions then s/he cannot be sensibly said to be morally dumbfounded... — creativesoul

I'm trying to reconcile this point. My concern is, what is the criterion for morality, who is making the moral judgment? If it is a true statement about the source of one's own moral convictions, then you are right, but if it is, say, culture, then it is entirely possible for Socrates to give a coherent but deluded reason for why he is ethically obligated to drink the hemlock.

There is no necessary causal or logical relation between what we experience, and what we think of that experience. — Merkwurdichliebe

All experience is existentially dependent upon a thinking/believing creature.

Surely that's a bit more compelling on a common sense basis/criterion for what is to be counted as and/or called "experience". If existential dependency doesn't count as being necessary, then nothing will.

Well, just ask an athiest is God has meaning, then ask if God exists. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would answer yes to both. The explication would satisfy both questions. There is no difference between belief in and/or about God and God.

Well, just ask an athiest is God has meaning, then ask if God exists.
— Merkwurdichliebe

I would answer yes to both. The explication would satisfy both questions. There is no difference between belief in and/or about God and God. — creativesoul

Now you're just getting deep. :flower:

All experience is existentially dependent upon a thinking/believing creature. — creativesoul

And is thought/belief existentially dependent upon experience? Chicken-Egg :snicker:

All experience is existentially dependent upon a thinking/believing creature.
— creativesoul

And is thought/belief existentially dependent upon experience? Chicken-Egg — Merkwurdichliebe

Evolutionarily... I would think that amoebas are incapable of either.

Hume skirted around an important aspect of thought/belief. Expectation. Seems to be adequate for concluding belief and drawing some line between stimulus/response and behaviour 'driven' by thought/belief.

Ethical conversation is always prescriptive, the ought. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not true. We've been involved in descriptive ethical/moral conversation throughout. I think that that may be where some of the issues are arising from. I'm talking about moral things as a kind, and others are talking about moral things as a manner of expressing their approval/agreement as compared/contrasted to immoral.

In this scenario, this particular state of mind (the morally dumbfouned) is in relation to the particular state of mind of the other(s) [...] Ethical conversation is always prescriptive, the ought. "True" doesn't matter, only reason. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ethical conversation is always prescriptive, the ought.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That's not true. We've been involved in descriptive ethical/moral conversation throughout. I think that that may be where some of the issues are arising from. I'm talking about moral things as a kind, and others are talking about moral things as a manner of expressing their approval/agreement as compared/contrasted to immoral. — creativesoul

You are misconstruing what I said. I was referring to the scenario (regarding moral dumbfounding) in which two or more moral agents are discussing the rational justification for their respective moral positions.

We, however, are in agreement. The descriptive conversion in which we are presently engaged is meta-ethical - it stands detached from prescriptive ethical considerations.

Evolutionarily... I would think that amoebas are incapable of either. — creativesoul

They certainly lack a neocortex.

Hume skirted around an important aspect of thought/belief.
Expectation. Seems to be adequate for concluding belief and drawing some line between stimulus/response and behaviour 'driven' by thought/belief. — creativesoul

I can agree with that at the level of immediacy and prelinguistic thought/belief. But, other than the guillotine, I completely reject Hume's ethics (and all derivations therefrom). So, as far as 'expectation' is concerned, I cannot associate it with anything ethical.

Of what use are those notions [intuitive, non-linguistic, subconscious] in this context?
— creativesoul

Yes, me wants to know too. — Merkwurdichliebe

In the context of moral dumbfounding? Plenty, in my opinion.

Dumbfounding is indicative of an implicit evaluation or conditioned response that is beneath conscious awareness.

The term 'prelinguistic' has been used a lot in the topic and I thought it might be helpful to clarify what is being meant in its usage. It can mean developments prior to language acquisition for our species or for children. The former might be considered instinctive or innate, but not the latter.

Regarding the source of morals, a distinction might be made between our innate condition, early pre-linguistic childhood conditioning, cultural conditioning (part of childhood conditioning), and whatever conditioning we might intentionally impose on ourselves.

I love philosophers who are courageous enough to speak oddly on occasion. — Merkwurdichliebe

You are a brave soul, Merk.

You are a brave soul, Merk. — praxis

:grin:

Dumbfounding is indicative of an implicit evaluation or conditioned response that is beneath conscious awareness. — praxis

I agree. I associate moral dumbfounding with irrational moral feeling/intuition which is grounded implicitly in moral though/belief. I feel that the former is analogous to the ethically charged subconscious, as the latter is to conditioned ethical consciousness.

Regarding the source of morals, a distinction might be made between our innate condition, early pre-linguistic childhood conditioning, cultural conditioning (part of childhood conditioning), and whatever conditioning we might intentionally impose on ourselves. — praxis

There is much grey area between these categorical stages. And, although specific details of our individual interpretations (of each stage) may vary a bit, I see a general agreement over the basic framework we have established here. We have succeeded, at least, in establishing a reasonably sensible working theory on the source of morals. There is definitely more to figure out, but this is not a bad achievement here on TPF, despite whether we've actually achieved anything of significance. If nothing else, we will be better prepared when we enter into any philosophical discussion on ethics.

We, however, are in agreement. The descriptive conversion in which we are presently engaged is meta-ethical - it stands detached from prescriptive ethical considerations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Good. We are involved in ethical conversation and it is not prescriptive... yet! Groundwork is crucial. We are getting there.

Good. We are involved in ethical conversation and it is not prescriptive... yet! Groundwork is crucial. We are getting there. — creativesoul

We have gotten this far, I am optimistic that we can take it a bit farther.

Where is the groundwork most required at this point?

I see a general agreement over the basic framework we have established here. We have succeeded, at least, in establishing a reasonably sensible working theory on the source of morals. There is definitely more to figure out, but this is not a bad achievement here on TPF, despite whether we've actually achieved anything of significance. If nothing else, we will be better prepared when we enter into any philosophical discussion on ethics. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well put!



I hope you stick around. I've been restraining from addressing some of the considerations you've put forth, particularly those involving the possible logical consequences of the Fox. That is a conversation that needs to happen, just not yet.

I've some senior graduation ceremonies to attend in real life this weekend. Great 'kid'. Loved to help him make better sense of Stove's worst argument. His professor used it to start his intro class. All we have are our perceptions and conceptions. Therefore all we can know about is our perceptions/conceptions...

Fun and easy to talk about trees as a means to differentiate between "trees" and trees.

I'll return later. Just a heads up to explain my future absence for a few days.

Thanks/kudos to all who've participated here.

Where is the groundwork most required at this point. — Merkwurdichliebe

What I'm doing is attempting to establish an adequate basis of true statements about morals, including their origen as a means to provide the best universal basis from which to establish a moral code. Amongst other things...

We still need to discuss power over people and further parse out the necessity of our being interdependent social creatures. Those who write the rules have tremendous power. Legitimized moral belief.

What do you find that still needs parsed prior to comparing/contrasting which rules ought be maintained and/or implemented and which ought not?

Thanks. Hopefully praxis and I don't fuck everything up in your absence. :wink:

(Stand by...addressing your last post.)

No worries. You two are fine. For all I know, you've already been through all this unbeknownst to me, but the novelty of my framework(odd way of talking) is holding your attention just to see if it gleans anything new and trustworthy/dependable/convincing.

:wink:

What I'm doing is attempting to establish an adequate basis of true statements about morals, including their origen as a means to provide the best universal basis from which to establish a moral code. — creativesoul

I like it. I will focus on this as the common goal (in addition to my own, personal, sadomasochist, selfish reasons :joke: ).

We still need to discuss power over people and further parse out the necessity of our being interdependent social creatures. Those who write the rules have tremendous power. Legitimized moral belief. — creativesoul

This point has been on the tip of my tongue for a while. Just haven't had the virtuosity to spit it out. This concern is my new priority here.

What do you find that still needs parsed prior to comparing/contrasting which rules ought be maintained and/or implemented and which ought not? — creativesoul

This is of secondary importance to the above concern, but I think it is important to examine the internalization of ethics. How is it internalized by the individual, and to what extent? What is the necessary relation of individually held morality to societal ethics? How do we clear up the confused dynamic of societal conditioning and internalization as it pertains to the moral authority (the rule writer) versus free ethical agency? How can we establish an adequate basis for true answers to these questions, and which questions require reformulation?

but the novelty is holding your attention just to see if it gleans anything new and trustworthy/dependable/convincing. — creativesoul

Indeed!

@creativesoul @praxis @Janus

So first question: what is the predominant moral authority? And, what is the primary source of that moral authority?

My instinct tells me: 1)consensus, 2)history.

First, consensus with parent, whose morality was developed over a period of history, which, in turn, began through consensus with parent...ad infinitum.

But, I could be wrong.

...

What I'm doing is attempting to establish an adequate basis of true statements about morals, including their origen as a means to provide the best universal basis from which to establish a moral code.
— creativesoul

I like it. I will focus on this as the common goal (in addition to my own, personal, sadomasochist, selfish reasons :joke: — Merkwurdichliebe

Funny you say that. There are other benefits of establishing a universal criterion. It comes in quite handy when we talk about how to compare/contrast competing conceptions.

:wink:

It's also quite useful to tame down rhetorical drivel regarding claims and/or implications/entailment that any and/or all 'definitions' and/or conceptions are on equal footing. The groundwork has already been put down to conclude that we can get some definitions wrong in a vey specific sense of being "wrong".

It's begun being laid to establish common sense conclusions about existential dependency and timeframes.

Funny you say that. There are other benefits of establishing a universal criterion. It comes in quite handy when we talk about how to compare/contrast competing conceptions. — creativesoul

It's as though we have to enter the same stadium if we are going to compete in a contest of bocce ball.

It's as though we have to enter the same stadium if we are going to compete in a contest of bocce ball. — Merkwurdichliebe

The analogy doesn't quite take out endeavor into proper account. I like watching people play games even sometimes when I do not want to play.

The analogy doesn't quite take out endeavor into proper account. I like watching people play games even sometimes when I do not want to play. — creativesoul

But even then, the best way to watch is by entering the stadium. Watching a summarization on TV never matches being there, live at the bocce ball match.

The stadium is the universal criterion in my analogy, to be clear.

It's also quite useful to tame down rhetorical drivel regarding claims and/or implications/entailment that any and/or all 'definitions' and/or conceptions are on equal footing. The groundwork has already been put down to conclude that we can get some definitions wrong in a vey specific sense of being "wrong". — creativesoul

Can you present an example where this has occurred in our discourse? Not disagreeing, only looking for a live example of such error so it can be properly understood.

It's begun being laid to establish common sense conclusions about existential dependency and timeframes. — creativesoul

Let me just re-emphasize. :ok:

I've some senior graduation ceremonies to attend in real life this weekend. Great 'kid'. — creativesoul

Happy travels and congrats to the kid. :party:

We still need to discuss power over people and further parse out the necessity of our being interdependent social creatures. Those who write the rules have tremendous power. Legitimized moral belief. — creativesoul

Ethical authority arrives at some point in societal conditioning. The primary influence of ethical authority is awakening the individual to the dichotomy of right and wrong.

1)what is the predominant moral authority?
2)what is the primary source of that moral authority?

My instinct tells me: 1)consensus, 2)history.

First, consensus with parent, whose morality was developed over a period of history, which, in turn, began through consensus with parent...ad infinitum. — Merkwurdichliebe

@creativesoul @praxis

Perhaps we should approximate where the notion of authority first arrises.

Authority becomes an established variable in prelinguistic thought/belief. It is in the primal emotional response to one's subjugation under a dominant figure that develops the thought/belief in authority as something real.

From here, we can transition with confidence into the introduction of linguistic thought/belief by authority . . . With linguistic thought/belief comes conceptual abstraction, and it would seem at this point, all necessary conditions are met for the inculcation of thought/belief that is moral in kind.

Perhaps we should approximate where the notion of authority first arrises. — Merkwurdichliebe

Highly relevant in regards to considering the source of morals. IMO.