I think I would leave out the yellow ring as well, then what is left is exactly what I envisaged. — Janus

I Google searched an image for "ethical and moral venn diagram".

I think we could keep the yellow ring if we take "legal" to mean "established normative assessments."

The point is that our subconscious mind... how should I say this, isn't as aligned with our conscious mind as we might think it is. This is shown in other ways as well, like hypnosis or placebo/nocebo, or just intuition in general.

This is meant to support the theory of ethical intuitionism. — praxis

Consider the moral judgement: "that killing is wrong". There are two modes of judgement. One comes in the opinion of moral thought/belief, it is indirectly related - detached - from the actual act of killing. The other is in the decision of action when confronted by the ethical choice to kill or not; it is based in moral feeling/intuition. This is why I can say, "killing is wrong", and then go out and kill when I'm confronted by the decision. I always think it is wrong, but when the moment to kill arrives, I feel it isn't. Rational thought and irrational feeling can be misaligned.

As you say: "our subconscious mind... how should I say this, isn't as aligned with our conscious mind as we might think it is"

The opinion is the rational part of morality, the decision is the irrational part.

To be aligned in opinion and decision might be termed: "ethically principled".

I think we could keep the yellow ring if we take "legal" to mean "established normative assessments." — Merkwurdichliebe

"Established normative assessments": to me that sounds more like a definition of culture than of law, but I guess 'legal' could be parsed that way. :smile:

How about if "legal" was replaced by 'cultural'; would that work for you?

How about if "legal" was replaced by 'cultural'; would that work for you? — Janus

Works even better. :smile:

As someone once said:

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

Then we can kick the ladder out from under us? :grin:

Then we can kick the ladder out from under us? :grin: — Merkwurdichliebe

I appreciate that reference to Wittgenstein. :smile:

Referring to Gautama we could say that we lay down the raft after crossing the river because there would be no need to carry it further. Some might say that we should continue to carry it just in case we are mistaken in thinking there are no more rivers to cross, but I say that we might find that each river requires a certain kind of raft, and we are better off not to worry about what lies ahead of us, but rather to trust in our ability to improvise when the need arises.

I wouldn't say this applies, though, when we can see a raging torrent on the horizon; as with, for example climate change; which is both an ethical and a moral issue in the face of which we cannot afford to discard any of our possible ameliorating resources.

I appreciate that reference to Wittgenstein. :smile: — Janus

To be fair, creativesoul was the first to reference that on this thread.

Referring to Gautama we could say that we lay down the raft after crossing the river because there would be no need to carry it further. Some might say that we should continue to carry it just in case we are mistaken in thinking there are no more rivers to cross, but I say that we might find that each river requires a certain kind of raft, and we are better off not to worry about what lies ahead of us, but rather to trust in our ability to improvise when the need arises. — Janus

You are beginning to touch on "faith". I prefer buddha, to leave the raft, and rely upon spontaneous improvisation. Of course, it isn't always the most practical way to do it.

Of course, it isn't always the most practical way to do it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Practicality, Schmackticality! Practical considerations, lifted out of their proper context and deified, as UTILITY, both lead to, and grow out of, the monetization of life. A vicious feedback loop!

@creativesoul
Is it appropriate to say the the ethical authority stands in relation to the ethical pupil? Can we call it the "moral agent", as in the one beset with the ethical task? The task is in forming right thought/belief, and then integrating that right understanding into one's behavior - responsibility.

Deception is possible in respect to ethical authority, but not with moral principle (excluding self-delusion, moral dumbfounding?). In relation to ethical authority, the moral agent is only right/wrong insofar as he appears to be. But as he is to himself, his morality depends upon his commitment to principle.

Practicality, Schmackticality! Practical considerations, lifted out of their proper context and deified, as UTILITY, both lead to, and grow out of, the monetization of life. A vicious feedback loop! — Janus

Sounds like the worst kind of tyranny. :fear:

Yes, that's why I dislike utilityrannyist ethics. The prescriptions are way too definite, and based on the delusion that the good can be quantified.

utilityrannyist ethics — Janus

:rofl:

The prescriptions are way too definite, and based on the delusion that the good can be quantified. — Janus

Ahhh yes...the utopian fantasy. :grimace:

Ahhh yes...the utopian fantasy. :grimace: — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol: Or the enjoyable version: the uteropian funtossy. (Sorry, I find it hard to resist the urge to play with words).

I must say, I enjoyed your theatricality. :cheer: — Merkwurdichliebe

Thespian for life, I suppose...

:cool:

The notion of "internalize" has been invoked and subsequently discussed. On my view, it is relevant to the autonomous unconscious mental ongoings that only a history of taking account of the world and/or ourselves can produce. I say this to bring attention to the plurality of different kinds of mental ongoings. We need not 'turn on' our physiological sensory perception. However, while internalization requires it sensory perception alone is not enough for internalization as I suspect it is being used here. All sorts of different thought/belief can become internalized. They become operative in the sense that they themselves have efficacy.

Hence, a single word, statement, idea, or even an implication can bring about an entire change in one's state of mind, emotional state, and/or attitude. These are the results of past internalization, and they are not the only ones.

What is commonly called a conscience is the manifestation of past internalizations. Thought/belief is being internalized. It can be about one's self and/or about others. Internalizing a pre-existing morality results in one's moral 'feelings'. These are involuntarily experienced during certain situations that are morally relevant to that particular person's worldview(morality).

The short point...

Internalization is a fancy way to describe part of what's going on when one adopts another's worldview, or some aspect thereof. When one assents to and/or agrees with someone else's thought/belief, it can become influential in the involuntary sense that it can begin to cause certain emotions and govern their behaviour.

There's nothing new here though. Everyone internalizes all sorts of other people's thought/belief. That is how one's own self-worth is cultivated. That is how one can hate another group of people, despite not knowing anything about them from personal experience. On and on...

The collective conscience is the product of the collective group of people all internalizing the same moral(s) and/or sharing the same moral thought/belief. It's not always a good thing, but that part of this discussion hasn't been reached yet.

I would like to know what others here think/believe to be the difference between what counts as being moral and what counts as being ethical in terms of kinds of belief.
— creativesoul

I've said this before, not sure whether on this thread or not, but I count ethical thought as being a broader category than moral thought; moral thought is concerned with others within the community, that is people and perhaps domestic animals, whereas ethical thought also involves that and additionally, involves oneself as oneself and all of nature. — Janus

I think that was earlier. My apologies for not addressing that at the time. I do remember - now that you've reminded me - wanting to flesh this out a bit. Merk seems to hold much the same view. But I'm wondering a few things in terms of existential dependency. I'm trying to account for what I think you're saying using my own framework. I'm wondering if you would agree to the following...

Ethical thought/belief is existentially dependent upon moral thought/belief. Thought/belief about oneself as oneself is existentially dependent upon ethical thought/belief. There is no thought/belief about oneself as oneself prior to ethical thought/belief.

Is ethical thought/belief ethical because it is thought/belief about oneself as oneself?

Upon what ground do you draw this distinction between ethical and moral?

Are there any examples of either that are not about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour?

I struggle to draw a distinction between ethical thought/belief and moral thought/belief. The most I can say would be that the difference lies entirely in the content. Ethical thought/belief consists of considering an other's morality, whereas moral does not.

It is when conflicting moralities meet at the table of dignified and courteous resolution that ethics begins in earnest.

The earlier bit regarding the term "necessary" is just a vestige of my disdain for the historical philosophical use of the word itself. It is largely the causal factor for my own notion of existential dependency. No worries.

I was being a bit nitpicky... I cringe at the word.

:wink:

...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

Not all internal agitation is unacceptable. Not all intent to stoke another's moral sensibilities is unacceptable.

Those would be some exceptional cases to the otherwise trustworthy rule of thumb in the above quote. The exceptions require specificity. Part of the specifics include thought/belief that prescribes/proscribes everyone's behaviour.

That is much different than thought/belief that takes account of the relevant common denominators. Those are the bedrock upon which to assess and evaluate the particulars.

The moral particulars.

I would concur. Parents are part of the community. Usually it is the parents who are the authority, however, it is well worth noting that some cases it is not and in all cases, the morality being implemented is adopted(mostly).
— creativesoul

The notion of "absentee parental figure" is not too much of an issue. In such cases, ethical conditioning bypasses the parental figure, and begins with other societal influences (friends/enemies, teachers, acquaintances, &c.). Everyone is eventually confronted by these influences, and they are all, more or less, quantitatively identical in respect to being an ethical authority. They provide the substantive material which the individual appropriates into a personal morality.

Morality becomes adopted through a complex process of appropriation, in which the ethical authority serves as the primary influence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yup. As earlier. We all adopt our initial worldview replete with moral thought/belief intact.

I'm wondering why you think that you can't know that I'm picturing something if you think that you can know that I'm thinking something then. — Terrapin Station

Not all thinking is picturing. That's why.

Is it appropriate to say the the ethical authority stands in relation to the ethical pupil? Can we call it the "moral agent", as in the one beset with the ethical task? — Merkwurdichliebe

We can call the one beset with the ethical task the "moral agent" if we are ok with sacrificing consistent terminological use. Equivocation inevitably leads to self-contradiction and/or incoherence. The term "moral agent" has not been used to differentiate between different kinds of moral agents; those beset with an ethical task and those not.

I would readily agree that the ethical authority stands in relation to the ethical pupil. That relationship changes.

The task is in forming right thought/belief, and then integrating that right understanding into one's behavior - responsibility. — Merkwurdichliebe

Let's continue with well grounded true thought/belief.

Deception is possible in respect to ethical authority, but not with moral principle (excluding self-delusion, moral dumbfounding?). In relation to ethical authority, the moral agent is only right/wrong insofar as he appears to be. But as he is to himself, his morality depends upon his commitment to principle. — Merkwurdichliebe

Deception is the name for a plurality of different things. An authority can deceive a follower with a moral principle. Deception is possible for a moral principle.

Morality evolves. Students can improve on a teacher's work.

Because I hold the above, I cannot agree with the quote above, as it is written.

Self-deception is impossible. One cannot knowingly and deliberately misrepresent their own thought/belief to oneself.

Delusion is the result of holding and/or having false belief. Moral dumbfounding is not always.

Unnecessarily multiplying entities again. I cannot see the good in what this adds.

The term "moral agent" has not been used to differentiate between different kinds of moral agents; those beset with an ethical task and those not. — creativesoul

I don't understand.. What would constitute a different kind of moral agent, for example, one not beset with the ethical task?

The task is in forming right thought/belief, and then integrating that right understanding into one's behavior - responsibility. — Merkwurdichliebe

I meant the ethical task for the ethical pupil. Sorry if I was unclear. I would never use the terms true/false to describe ethical judgment.

I would agree that our task is aimed at well grounded true thought/belief.

Deception is possible for a moral principle. — creativesoul

How do you define moral principle?

Unnecessarily multiplying entities again. I cannot see the good in what this adds. — creativesoul

You gotta separate the wheat from the chaff. All you did was pick out the chaff.

It's actually funny, I added that shit about delusion against my better judgment.

The term "moral agent" has not been used to differentiate between different kinds of moral agents; those beset with an ethical task and those not.
— creativesoul

I don't understand.. What would constitute a different kind of moral agent, for example, one not beset with the ethical task? — Merkwurdichliebe

It's your distinction. I was hoping you could set it out.

I'm attempting to understand what you're attempting to convey. A moral agent need not have an ethical task assigned to her/him/them in order to be a moral agent. That follows from our groundwork. What sense does it make then to differentiate between pupil and teacher based upon calling only the one assigned an ethical task the "moral agent" when they can both be?

That seems to be what you're doing below, which prompted this exchange...

Is it appropriate to say the the ethical authority stands in relation to the ethical pupil? Can we call it the "moral agent", as in the one beset with the ethical task? — Merkwurdichliebe

The one beset with the ethical task is being called the "moral agent" by you... not I. It's up to you to set it out. That would entail contradicting what we agreed to earlier by offering another definition for what counts as moral. Unfortunately, equivocation is unacceptable, and that is what we'd do here if we followed the suggestion. We would be equivocating the meaning of the term "moral agent". That charge holds unless the earlier agreement is honoured and/or remains upheld.

We do want to do that, keep our terms of agreement, do we not?

:wink:

I'm just trying to understand what you're referring to.

What sense doe it make then to differentiate between pupil and teacher based upon calling only the one assigned an ethical task the "moral agent" when they can both be. — creativesoul

Because I feel there is an unequivocal distinction between ethical authority ethical pupil.

The ethical authority has a specific role of exposing the pupil to moral thought/belief. Other than indoctrinating, and then judging the pupil, the work of ethical authority is done. Ethical authority represents absolute right - it has nothing else to prove. On the other hand, the ethical pupil is always under examination in regard to the ethical task, if not by the authority, by himself, that is why I call it the "moral agent".

With that said, I also hold the role of ethical authority and ethical pupil to be relativistic, in that they depend upon the particular relation in question. In relation to one player I can be the authority, in relation to another I can be pupil.

I feel there is an unequivocal distinction between ethical authority ethical pupil. — Merkwurdichliebe

Perhaps. That distinction cannot be that one is the moral agent and the other is not. It can be the case that they are both moral agents.