Not necessarily. In theistic systems, morality/ethics is primarily about the relationship between God and man, and it's only about how we ought to treat others in the sense that this reflects on our relationship to God.Isn't that the very nature of ethics? How we ought treat others? — Banno
Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation?That's why I said if there's no Arabic word that means the same thing as 'moral' then they might not have a conception of good. — Michael
Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation? — baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that?Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow. — baker
Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly. — baker
Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently. — Chet Hawkins
Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt? — Chet Hawkins
By something being ‘objective’, are you just meaning that it is ‘immutable’? — Bob Ross
Well, no. It does not change. So, to me you can also say, TF it is a law of the universe. It is truth or part of truth. And there are many such laws
Everything in reality, all iota of matter and even dreams, all of it, yes, everything, partakes of fear.
Perfection is singular.
Again, truth does not apply to states.
The physical reality we think we know, is not known. It is delusion. It is just emotion, just consciousness. The model I am getting to is a theoretical 'proof' for this truth
There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them. And although mind is only precisely one third of reality
That is a flat-out contradiction. You can’t say X is all there is and X is one third of what all there is. — Bob Ross
I agree. That is only because I am not saying it quite right. But, unlike logicians I am more comfortable with that. So, I need your help actually.
I want to learn how to say it right, if that is possible.
I would also say that to think without existing is entirely incoherent. Why would you try to defend that? Yes, something exists because it can think. Any I that thinks, must exist.
I mean, I think I get you. I am not at all sure you get me. I would like to discuss the whole topic of objective morality.
I tried to trim this down after the fact. It was like 3-4 times larger before. Hopefully its still succinct and coherent.
Implying the monkey sees the human as a peer? Doubtful. The bizarre situation with regular human interaction is almost not factorable. Caged animals are well aware they are caged.Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently.
— Chet Hawkins
So perhaps the monkey's behavior arises from evolved instincts conducive to training conspecifics not to be bad persons? — wonderer1
Well, of course we do. They were named for a religious order after all. But those nasty little buggers never converted. They stuck with free will and balance, instead of highbrow persecution and itchy clothing.Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt?
— Chet Hawkins
Could the answer to your question be, "Because we share instincts, to some degree, with our capuchin cousins?" — wonderer1
Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.What determines the right way? Is it how most speakers of the language use the word? If the vast majority of Arabic speakers use the word "أخلاقي" to describe acts which are condoned by the Quran, and if the meaning of a word is determined by the things most speakers of the language use it to describe, then it would seem to follow that being condoned by the Quran is part of the meaning of the word "أخلاقي". — Michael
I meant usefulness in a meta sense.Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.
— baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that? — Chet Hawkins
Yes, I get that. I agree.I meant usefulness in a meta sense.
"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]" — baker
To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that. — baker
I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive.Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.
— baker
To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.
Example(s):
Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality. — Chet Hawkins
Everybody speaks of good as ‘that which is desired’. It is impossible to call
good what is detested. Good, therefore, is anything that moves enjoyably the
faculty of desire which draws us to enjoy good. Everyone agrees about this.
There is no need to demonstrate the absurdity of the contrary. For people in
general, good means a relationship between things and the faculty of desire. But
what are the things we call good because they can move our desire?
Answering this question will lead us to a fuller, more precise notion of good... — Antonio Rosamini's Principles of Ethics, p. 28
I mean, I agree. If you are saying that morality is super hard, I agree. And if you are saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions', I agree. But that does not release us from the burden of choice. In fact, it only underscores it.I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive. — baker
I disagree, entirely.Not to get too Nietzschean about it, but if you look at the function of uttering propositional moral statements, it is precisely as described above. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing more to propositional moral statements but that they are tools for controlling others. — substantivalism
this does not take away from the fact that there is such a thing as kindness — Bob Ross
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.