What is the most dependable method of approach to this topic? I mean, ought we not put good reason to good use here - sound - if at all possible. There's no disagreement concerning whether or not we have morals. There's no disagreement concerning how we come to adopt our first morals(original language acquisition). I assume that we all agree that morals must begin simply and grow in complexity along with our understandings/worldviews. I assume that none of us are going to argue that a zygote has morals. In general, human thought/belief about morals has grown in complexity along with our knowledge regarding the history of morals/morality throughout the world. A robust account/theory of the origen of morals ought be able to take proper sensible account of all of these considerations and more.
Methodology seems to be the contentious issue.
Like some of you, I also agree that the approach needs to be multi-faceted. Empiricism looks towards physical observation. Morals aren't just physical. Thoughts aren't just physical. Beliefs aren't just physical. Rationalism looks towards pure(a priori) reason alone. There is no such thing. Methodological naturalism requires quantification. Does existential quantification count? There's some sense of verifiability/falsifiability possible if we're careful how we frame our line of thinking/vein of thought. Conceptual scheme(linguistic framework) is paramount here.
I disagree with Witt on this matter. The ladder cannot be kicked out from beneath us - unless it is utterly inadequate for justificatory support to begin with. Not all metaphysics shares the inadequacies of metaphysics based upon historical dichotomies unless it is also based upon them.
Even then, we're not kicking it out by virtue of taking it into logical notation - contrary to Quine. Taking inadequate common language use into proper logical account transmits the inadequate explanatory power of the common language use.
Subject/object. Internal/External. Mental/physical. Material/immaterial.
None of the above dichotomies are capable of taking proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither.
All thought/belief is one example of a plurality of different things that consist of both, and are thus neither. The presupposition of truth(as correspondence) inherent to all thought/belief somewhere along the line is another. All attribution of meaning is yet one more.
Connections. Associations. Correlations.
Thought/belief is formed when a creature draws a mental correlation between different things. All thought/belief consists of mental correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content regardless of subsequent further qualification.
All meaning consists entirely of drawing mental correlations, associations, and/or connections between that which becomes sign/symbol and that which becomes significant/symbolized. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification as 'real', 'imagined', and/or otherwise.
Rather, we're systematically replacing the faulty rungs, until - in the end - they're all based upon, agree with, and/or effectively supplant parts of the current knowledge base.
Paradigm shift. — creativesoul
Ethical authority is the power to write and/or enforce the rules regarding what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That is to have power over people. All power over people is obtained in one of two ways. It is either granted or usurped. — creativesoul
It is either granted or usurped. — creativesoul
is it possible to view the morals of a community as a sort of 'strongly recommended advice' to people who might wish to join that community without causing significant internal agitation or potentially upsetting another community? — Couchyam
So I don’t know if parents and teachers are the right way to find the right and wrong ethics. — BrandonMcDade
parents and teachers — BrandonMcDade
Would you like to touch upon dialect or mien? Or would you rather talk of codependency? — BrandonMcDade
Most ethics comes from the fact we will soon reach an inexorable demise. “The anxiety of death.” — BrandonMcDade
Why is it there valuations and dialect change once they’re isolated or come across opposing knowledge or opinions? Where does this defense mechanism come from, and why is the conscious not allowing the host to understand of its own arrogance or ignorance? — BrandonMcDade
Apologies, of it seeming rushed, — BrandonMcDade
fantasy’s start very young through the ego to stop the torment given to them by parents or neighbors. — BrandonMcDade
The ego doesn’t just show up after you got to see the world for a bit. It is forming and active even during infancy. Ego must be the origin of any valuations. — BrandonMcDade
What would you claim are the bases of inferences that others have moral feelings, thoughts and dispositions, and that their behavior is morally motivated? — Janus
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.