So then a guy comes along celebrating the joys of rape, and you can't tell him rape is wrong, but only that he's defective because he doesn't intuitively know that rape is wrong, even though you just got through saying rape isn't wrong in an absolute way. — Hanover

I'm pretty confident that you agree that rape is wrong. I'm confident you would join me in condemning this misanthrope.

So I can tell him that rape is wrong, as can you.

There's no incontrovertible ethical "law; that again shows a misunderstanding of the direction of fit of moral statements. We do not discover moral statements by examining how things are; we make things fit our moral statements. The direction is not fitting our words to the way things are, but fitting the way things are to the world.

And there is disagreement. The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish.

A note on murder.

Murder is unlawful killing. It's immorality stems from whatever morality there is in breaking the law. If one ought follow the law, then one ought not murder.

It follows that killing someone does not count as murder if it is sanctioned by law, as in self defence, capital punishment, war or euthanasia.

So is killing someone immoral? It quickly becomes evident that this depends on the circumstances. It is not difficult to dream up dilemmas to suit the most confused adolescent. Treating it as a set of incontrovertible rules belies the complexity. Is it better to run a tram over a half-dozen terminal patients than one Trump supporter? Yep, ethics is difficult.

You've just presented an objective basis for determining morality. You're not arguing relatavism any more. — Hanover

Yes, I made that point earlier - that this is as close to 'objective' as we can get in my view.

If "flourishing" is the objective goal, you've got to offer some reason why. If it is just because it is, that is equivalent to "god says so." — Hanover

Why flourishing? I've already said that this is a presupposition. No one has to accept it. There are those who think that people don't deserve to flourish and thrive. That a failed state is perfectly fine, that misery and suffering and warfare are satisfactory conditions for life.

:up:

"Free pass" just according to you, or are you invoking the idea of higher authority? If it is just you; I have to say the idea of an individual disapproving of nature seems somehow absurd. — Janus

As a criterion of value, be it personal or social. I'm not the only person who has pointed to the horror that is nature and felt a repugnance for some of it. Darwin's faith was tested severely when he learned about the hatching behavior of a wasp.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars…”

Charles Darwin

My exemplar Darwin quote:

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? — Charles Darwin, private correspondence

:up: Nature looks horrible when the assumption is that it has been intelligently designed. Then individual disapprobation does not look absurd because an intelligent designer would naturally be presumed to be ethically aware and motivated.

So, on reflection I see that it would be absurd to invoke a higher authority as support for one's disapproval of nature unless one followed the Gnostics in believing that the world was created, not by the highest god, but by another power such as the self-deluded deity they called Yaldabaoth (if memory serves); an unintelligent designer.

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? — Charles Darwin, private correspondence

Presuming that our convictions are nothing more than instinctive responses, the idea of questioning the morality of a purported higher authority really is incoherent, because the whole idea of a higher authority, and the question itself, would also be nothing more than instinctive responses.

...finding truths... — Agent Smith

And if the truth is that some - many - terms are not definable in the way you suppose, you would pretend otherwise in order to retain your mythology?

I'm pretty confident that you agree that rape is wrong — Banno

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

You are confident we are in agreement that rape is wrong. Why? Just because I'm a Western educated law abiding adult similar enough in background to you that I must share this norm? Is that the extent of it?

My question is asked because we know your confidence does not arise because we both have similar reasons to object to rape (as same would childish, like Kant or Bentham I suppose), so then where does it come from? It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular?

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

A note on murder — Banno

If you're interested: https://tjpnews.com/torah-makes-distinction-between-murder-killing/

It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options. — Hanover

It comes from moral deliberation, from what we as reasonable social animals regard as acceptable and unacceptable behavior. We begin from where we are, with law and custom, but sometimes what was acceptable can no longer be accepted. We come to regard things differently, to value things differently.

Although morality does not stand on absolute grounds that does not mean that we do not stand absolutely for or against certain actions.

Presuming that our convictions are nothing more than instinctive responses, the idea of questioning the morality of a purported higher authority really is incoherent, because the whole idea of a higher authority, and the question itself, would also be nothing more than instinctive responses. — Janus

So much for the sovereignty of reason, then. Rather vitiates philosophy, doesn't it? (Oh, the irony.)

:up:

Although morality does not stand on absolute grounds that does not mean that we do not stand absolutely for or against certain actions. — Fooloso4

You're just describing cognitive dissonance. Sure, we can be absolutely opposed to rape and treat it as if no person can question its immorality ever, but why we suspend our reason and afford it absolute evil status when we know it's really just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world.

So much for the sovereignty of reason, then. Rather vitiates philosophy, doesn't it? (Oh, the irony.) — Wayfarer

Well, the point is that we do philosophy regardless, and we take ourselves to be making sense. How do we know that is not compatible with our intellects having evolved naturalistically? To say that it is not may be a mistake we make on account of not being able to understand how the two facts (if they are facts) that our intellects have evolved and that they make sense, could be compatible.

It seems obvious that our intellects have evolved, and it does not seem obvious they have been designed by a transcendent intelligence; reason is sovereign for us regardless, simply because it seems self-evident that it must be, on pain of absurdity.

In other words, what if our convictions are not nothing more than instinctive responses, but are instinctive responses, and validly, or not, reasoned conclusions? Must it be either/ or?

Ok, so what is this "core insight"? — Banno

So much for the sovereignty of reason, then. — Wayfarer

Moral emotions may play a guiding role as well.

But do I dare speak fondly of feelings on this forum?

Feelings and reason - it can be a healthy partnership. Though philosophers in general tend to exalt the latter and denigrate the former.

Reason untempered by emotion - that's only half-human.


From the wiki on moral emotions.

"Moral reasoning has been the focus of most study of morality dating all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. The emotive side of morality has been looked upon with disdain, as subservient to the higher, rational, moral reasoning, with scholars like Piaget and Kohlberg touting moral reasoning as the key forefront of morality.[4] However, in the last 30–40 years,[when?] there has been a rise in a new front of research: moral emotions as the basis for moral behavior. This development began with a focus on empathy and guilt, but has since moved on to encompass new emotional scholarship on emotions such as anger, shame, disgust, awe, and elevation. With the new research, theorists have begun to question whether moral emotions might hold a larger role in determining morality, one that might even surpass that of moral reasoning."

Sure, we can be absolutely opposed to rape and treat it as if no person can question its immorality ever, but why we suspend our reason and afford it absolute evil status when we know it's really just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world. — Hanover

What makes you think god/s are against rape (have you read the Old Testament/Tanakh)? What makes you think a god's moral positions are useful, if they can even be identified?

Theistic morality does not escape any of the questions secular morality faces. Theistic moral systems have no foundation for their beliefs.

If I attempt to relate that - even considering I possess it, which I don't - if you're not even open to the possibility that it is so, then there's nothing to discuss.
— Wayfarer

That's how you shoot yourself in the foot, and why so many here don't take you seriously.

Such a self-deprecating remark as you make above is either a sample of false humility (which is offputting), or just a plain declaration of incompetence (which is also offputting). — baker

:clap: Amen!

we suspend our reason — Hanover

It's likely crucial to include the potence of the emotions here.

A good part of why rape is considered so heinous is doubtless the way rape, and reports of rape, make us feel.

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling.— Hanover

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convi[nce] you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

:100:

Well, the point is that we do philosophy regardless, and we take ourselves to be making sense. How do we know that is not compatible with our intellects having evolved naturalistically? — Janus

The contradiction is that we assured by naturalism that the Universe has no inherent meaning, that the idea that life has a reason for existing is an anachronistic throwback to an ignorant age. Whereas it was assumed by pre-modern philosophy that things exist for a reason and that the rational faculty is what enables us to grasp it.

n. With the new research, theorists have begun to question whether moral emotions might hold a larger role in determining morality, one that might even surpass that of moral reasoning." — ZzzoneiroCosm

You see what I meant by 'subjectivizing'?

''Max Horkheimer's 1947 book The Eclipse of Reason argues that individuals in "contemporary industrial culture" experience a "universal feeling of fear and disillusionment", which can be traced back to the impact of ideas that originate in the Enlightenment conception of reason, as well as the historical development of industrial society. Before the Enlightenment, reason was seen as an objective force in the world. Now, it is seen as a "subjective faculty of the mind". In the process, the philosophers of the Enlightenment destroyed "metaphysics and the objective concept of reason itself." Reason no longer determines the "guiding principles of our own lives", but is subordinated to the ends it can achieve. In other words, reason is instumentalized.

The effects of this shift are devaluing. There is little love for things in themselves. Philosophies, such as pragmatism and positivism, "aim at mastering reality, not at criticizing it." Man comes to dominate nature, but in the process dominates other men by dehumanizing them. He forgets the unrepeatable and unique nature of every human life and instead sees all living things as fields of means. His inner life is rationalized and planned. "On the one hand, nature has been stripped of all intrinsic value or meaning. On the other, man has been stripped of all aims except self-preservation." Popular Darwinism teaches only a "coldness and blindness toward nature."

According to Horkheimer, the individual in mass society is a cynical conformist. Ironically, the 'idolization of progress' leads to the decline of the individual.'

We do not discover moral statements by examining how things are; we make things fit our moral statements. — Banno

How Nietzschean of you!

You see what I meant by 'subjectivizing'? — Wayfarer

Yeah, I get it. People have to decide.

Do you situate the source of ethics and morals in the perennial philosophy you referred to above?

I know it through Huxley.

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

So if not an argument - if not an act of reason - then a feeling?

Darwin's faith was tested severely when he learned about the hatching behavior of a wasp.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars…”

Charles Darwin — Tom Storm

:fire:

Before the Enlightenment, reason was seen as an objective force in the world. Now, it is seen as a "subjective faculty of the mind". — Wayfarer

Yes. A fascinating book.

Do you situate the source of ethics and morals in the perennial philosophy you referred to above? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I try to, but it's difficult. It makes you wrestle with some deep existential questions. But that's why I studied the subjects I did and pursued this particular type of inquiry.

... assured by naturalism that the Universe has no inherent meaning, that the idea that life has a reason for existing is an anachronistic throwback to an ignorant age. — Wayfarer

This is true of nihilism and – once again – not (moral) "naturalism". :roll:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

What makes you think god/s are against rape (have you read the Old Testament/Tanakh)? What makes you think a god's moral positions are useful, if they can even be identified? — Tom Storm

Too far afield here and really a massive strawman. No one has argued the Bible (or any other text) represents the word of God. I'm not arguing divine command theory. I'm arguing moral realism, asserting an actual right and wrong beyond the opinion of humans. Our understanding of morality, just like the rest of reality, is through observation and reason and it is refined over time. That is, today's understanding of morality is superior to 500 years ago. We're not just flittering randomly over time regarding what is good and evil, but are getting closer to the truth.