In sociology and other social sciences, internalization (or internalisation) means an individual's acceptance of a set of norms and values (established by others) through socialisation. — Merkwurdichliebe
So an instruction booklet on badminton would be a source of morals? Since it provides conditions under which a particular school is move is right or wrong? Badminton is an example of human behaviour, no? — Isaac
Right, so that it was something external prior to the internalization.
The problem is that you can't literally have morals/morality, values, etc. that are external. — Terrapin Station
Can you identify the most egregious error so far? Or if that's too difficult for you, many just pick one of the worst.
— praxis
Primarily, this is supposed to be a discussion about the source of morals. No one has defined either what is meant by 'source', nor what is meant by 'morals'. A discussion cannot even start without that, and I don't mean by that some kind of anthropological investigation into all the ways the word is used (that would be pointless unless we are to invoke some kind of global wordsmith who ensures all our uses are compatible). I mean a commitment to a class of uses. We can start there. — Isaac
Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook.
— Terrapin Station
Clearly that doesn't bother him. On the contrary, he must get a kick out of it. He's enthusiastically adopted creativesoul's gobbledygook, and he doesn't even seem embarrassed about it.
— S
First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from.
Personally I developed this thesis:
We start life with the need to continue our species existence.
Then we move to develop them independently (divine command, unitilitarianism, and whatever else) then to form governments with some degree of state control we use contractarianism.
After these steps we try to spread our morality to others as a sense ofapprovalsolidarity, the idea being wedon't want to live thinking we did something wrong (not wanting our morals challenged)need to live cooperatively for mutual benefit on a large scale.
Those we disagree with are our enemies and we treat them how our independent morals demand (so different for everyone).
I'm sure I haven't covered all my bases so I'm asking for, people to point out my mistakes and contribute new ideas I haven't come up with yet. — hachit
There are theories of moral developmental reasoning. I think kohlberg's is considered a little out of date. — praxis
So then, your morals, and praxis' morals are internal to me. — Merkwurdichliebe
Strikethrough and bolding are my suggestions. Moral issues are often politicized to promote a particular party or ideology. Things like abortion and capital punishment are used by politicians to whip-up support for themselves or their party, without really caring about the moral issue. Unfortunately, it's typical for this to be more about gaining and maintaining wealth and power than it is for promoting human flourishing.
Could you explain how that makes sense to you (as something you're figuring is implied by my comments)? — Terrapin Station
We can't do that very well with misconceived ontology. — Terrapin Station
If morals are only internal, and have no external analogue, then what I said follows. No ifs, ands, or buts. — Merkwurdichliebe
The "misconceived ontology" at work here is your facile solipsistic thinking in terms of <internal > and <external>. — Janus
If morals are only internal, then you internally possess my morals because?
Try that with something else that is internal to individuals. If desires are only internal, then you possess my desires because? — Terrapin Station
How about just explaining how you think it would imply that you somehow have my morality? — Terrapin Station
If you say that nothing external to the mind/body can be internalized — Janus
then you could have no contact with the external world, — Janus
Right, so that it was something external prior to the internalization.
The problem is that you can't literally have morals/morality, values, etc. that are external. — Terrapin Station
If you say there can be no morals (no moral behavior, thoughts, attitudes or whatever) external to your mind then how would that not be solipsistic? — Janus
First off, the world isn't solely comprised of morals. That's all I'm talking about there--morals.
Secondly, even if we were saying that it's "solipsistic about morality," I'm not actually saying anything solipsistic about morality. I'm neither saying that no morality other than one's own exists nor that one can only know that only one's own morality exists. — Terrapin Station
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.