Then what's the measure of someone's authority if there is no ultimate good? — Qwex
What's the point then? — Metaphysician Undercover
Isn't this just like saying "let's discuss morality, but I have no respect for your opinion, I just want to discuss my opinion"? — Metaphysician Undercover
I WILL begin by stating three theses which I present in this paper. The first is that it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that should be laid aside at any rate until we have an
adequate philosophy of psychology, in which we are conspicuously lacking. — A
Then what's the measure of someone's authority if there is no ultimate good? — Qwex
Morality is therefore not a FUNCTION of descriptive ethics, but a topic of it. — god must be atheist
The question might be asked, what is it, which persuades another to accept moral principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm pretty sure that's what's meant by being a function of. — Isaac
So as to philosophers and the willing, the thesis is that we do not have a basis without religion on which to ground a discussion — unenlightened
I'm pretty sure Galuchat just meant that it is the job of descriptive ethics to produce theories — Isaac
Enough said. — god must be atheist
Galuchat quoted a passage from a different author, Galuchat admitting to it later, but not attributing the words to the source when he first quoted it. — god must be atheist
Descriptive ethics may deal with this, but only ineffectually. Morality is therefore not a FUNCTION of descriptive ethics, but a topic of it. — god must be atheist
So to say ""what morality is" is a function of Descriptive Ethics", is just to say that "providing answers to the question" what morality is" is one of the tasks descriptive ethics is meant to do. — Isaac
Thought is incredibly calorie intensive, we have a huge network of functions designed to select and imitate others, it's just massively more efficient than trying to work it out from scratch each time. — Isaac
The interesting question, for me, is how people select who to imitate - but that's a completely different topic. Moral virtues and duties are usually adopted by imitation. Consequentialist moral decisions are obviously an exception, by their very nature, but the goals against which potential outcomes are measured are still virtues or duties determined by cultural inheritance. — Isaac
Why does one state "it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy", and then proceed to do moral philosophy? — Metaphysician Undercover
Would you classify imitating others as a form of pretending? — Metaphysician Undercover
Aren't we taught that good moral standards involve thinking things out for ourselves, and not to simply imitate others? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I think what's meant by 'pretending' seems to require a concious deceit. With morality, there doesn't appear to be anything to be a deceitful version of. There's no 'true' moral judgement which copying others is only a pretense of. How others behave just is one of the drives which determine our decisions sometimes. — Isaac
We might be taught it, and in this day and age, probably with good reason, but the teaching is just post hoc rationalisation of what's already going on. After all, why would we trust the teacher? Our sense of trustworthiness, rightful authority, duty... All must be in place already just to accept the teacher telling us to work it out for ourselves. Not to mention the fact we still need an objective against which to measure the options. If we do the calculations ourselves (which course of action is best) we have to already have in place what constitutes the 'best' we're aiming for, and the idea that us using our own rational capabilities to work this out is itself the best course of action. — Isaac
Sorry, sometimes I don't see what appears obvious to others. That's why I ask for explanations. I don't think it's related to smartness, I think it's a psychological condition. Why not just address the issue instead of expressing a biased judgement of my psyche, in a way meant to insult? — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know what to say really. To paraphrase A : moral philosophy is in a state because bla bla bla and all this other stuff needs to be sorted out before we can hope to make sense of it. In the meantime, I am not going to discuss any of this with Jeffery Dahmer, Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot. I cannot justify it, but I'm not going to commit atrocities because philosophy is a mess. — unenlightened
if Unenlightened's account is accurate, the article suffers the problems Unenlightened has demonstrated. — Metaphysician Undercover
Moral philosophy determines what's good, — Metaphysician Undercover
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.