Yeah: morality is performative, not propositional; though we reflect on what can be said about it – 'descriptions', 'definitions', 'heuristics', 'values' (i.e. priorities), 'practical examples', etc – in order to comparatively study different moral justifications for (i.e. different assessments of the "moral import" of) what we do.Morality is not made of norms and values. It's made of acts. It's what one does that has moral import, not what one says, nor even what one values. — Banno
Well done for just ignoring the refutation and continuing to assert your theory. — Bartricks
The theory you're asserting (not defending) is the metaethical theory known as 'individual subjectivism'. — Bartricks
You really don't. — Bartricks
Morality is made of norms and values. — Bartricks
↪Bartricks I did. You can't see it. That's how discussion with you goes.
Three rebuttals, each unmet:
From T H E, that morality is a social phenomena, not an individual one.
From @counterpunch, that Moral proscriptions are post hoc
From me, that morality is not "made of norms and values", but of acts.
Argue something, Bart. — Banno
Bravo, only - my argument is more that morality is fundamentally a sense formed in the pre-intellectual, behaviourally intelligent ancestors of homo sapiens. — counterpunch
Where do norms and values come from? Do they grow on trees? Are they mined from deep in the earth? Do they fall from the sky when its very, very cloudy? — counterpunch
You know London? Where does it come from? Where does London come from? — Bartricks
That's called a confused question that only a very confused person would ask. — Bartricks
Here's another:
"where do moral norms and values come from?" — Bartricks
The past. — counterpunch
The question you asked?! — counterpunch
I can explain where norms and values come from. The behavioural intellligence of hunter gatherer tribes - looking after each other to survive. Interestingly, it's why Nietzsche is wrong in his nihilism. He needn't have worried himself to death. Man in a state of nature could not have been an amoral, self serving brute - who was fooled by the weak. The human species could not have survived if primitive man were Nietzschian, and Jane Goodall et al., show that not even animals are animals! — counterpunch
Why can't you explain where your supposed norms and values come from? — counterpunch
Understood - Please forgive the rhetorical flourish. — Banno
There's a bit of the logic that I think interesting, but that is in danger of being overlooked; and it is similar to, but I think distinct from, T H E's point. It's that moral judgements are inherently collective; and I don't mean that in the way that their conceptualisation is essentially a social enterprise like any other; but that they are judgements about what we, not I - should do.. — Banno
SO my preference for gardening is about me, and while gardening may involve being social, is not inherently collective; it is a preference for what I might choose.
But a moral preference is a preference not just for me, but for others; if it is morally reprehensible to do such-and-such, that holds not just for me but for everyone, at least everyone in similar circumstances.
One does not suppose that because one has a preference for gardening, everyone ought also garden. This is not so for our moral preferences. We do expect others to follow them.
That seems to be a crucial part of the logic, or grammar, of moral thinking. — Banno
I did. A moral foundry outside Sheffield. — Bartricks
I maintain you also have a sense of morality — counterpunch
I maintain that (....) morality is primarily subjective — counterpunch
Robinson Crusoe cannot behave immorally, alone on a desert island — counterpunch
To get a context on the matter.Why do you ask? — Banno
This view is far from universal. For some people, for example, morality is all about laws and rules: what matters is that one obeys laws, rules, and it doesn't matter how people feel about that or how they are affected by it.Morality and ethics are about how one is to relate to others. — Banno
But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing.It's that moral judgements are inherently collective; and I don't mean that in the way that their conceptualisation is essentially a social enterprise like any other; but that they are judgements about what we, notI should do. — Banno
I maintain that (....) morality is primarily subjective — counterpunch
I maintain that the sum of scientific knowledge is rightfully the objective order and morality is primarily subjective, but also inter-subjective, social, political - and so subject to social struggle to define. Our rightful place is the position Hume objects to; the bridge between the 'is' and the 'ought' - knowing what's objectively true, and feeling, and articulating what's morally right - on the basis of what's scientifically true. — counterpunch
But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing. — baker
But the real question for assessing moral reasoning is _why_ we should do something and not do some other thing.
— baker
Well, no. The real question is "What should I do, now, in this situation?". Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.
Rules don't make actions good or bad; it is easy to find examples of evil committed by following the rules. Consequences do not make actions good or bad; it is easy to justify acts of evil on the basis of their consequences.
Hence my preference for virtue ethics. Deontology and consequentialism serve virtue. — Banno
The fact that some people sometimes lie about their intentions, motivations, justifications for acting one way or another does not detract us from operating under the assumption that people actually have intentions, motivations, justifications for acting the way they do.Assessing moral reasoning - deontology - is in danger of becoming a post-hoc exercise in self-justification.
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.