Isn't that the very nature of ethics? How we ought treat others? — Banno

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.

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?

Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation? — baker

The argument the other person made was that the meaning of a word is determined by the things it is used to describe.

The things Arabic speakers describe using the word “ أخلاقي” often aren’t the things English speakers describe using the word “moral”.

Therefore if we accept the other person’s reasoning then the words “أخلاقي” and “moral” don’t mean the same thing.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe. — Michael

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly.

In theistic systems — baker

Part of why theistic systems are muddled.

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?

We have to add in all other virtues to see the effect it has on the aim. So, saying usefulness is not in and of itself sufficient. We need some other descriptor that means 'good' use. Just so.

So, if you say then that the aim is good amid being useful, and the predictable effect is also good, then that shows alignment with objective morality. If, however, something is useful and not good, then it really was not ever accurately useful in the first place, if you follow. The real term useful must include only that which is useful for good.

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly. — baker

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".

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?

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?"

Firstly, I want to disclaim that you are NOT aggravating me nor am I frustrated with you; and I apologize if my responses are giving you that impression. I have nothing but respect and admiration for anyone who is willing to genuinely discuss difficult topics with sincerity, an open-mind, and a respectful attitude. Even if we end up completely disagreeing on everything, I respect your endeavor to think more about these topics (:

With that being said, your responses are just typically very long, and seem divergent (in terms of the topics being brought up) and I personally have difficulty keeping track. Perhaps it is just an issue on my end, who knows!

In terms of your ethical theory, I would suggest that, if you want people to contend with it properly, you open a discussion board for that. I am more than happy to respond to whatever about your theory has relevance to my theory, but beyond that it just becomes pure derailment. If you create a thread for your theory, I will be more than happy to talk about it in full detail there.

In terms of your theory of truth, what is ‘truth’ to you? Is it ‘the whole of reality’? Is it ‘what is’? Is it ‘the correspondence of thought with reality’? Etc.

You say “truth to me is all that is objective”: I think everything that exists mind-independently is objective.

Likewise, it seems like you are associated immutability with truth, and I am not sure what you are exactly implying there: are you saying that, to you, truth is an existent object out there that is unchanging? Or just that truth is absolute?

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

If “Truth to me is all that is objective, “ and “Objective is the nature of truth, unchanging, eternal, conceptual.” then it incoherent for you to claim that objectivity has the property of immutability—unless you are just mentioning that it doesn’t just have that property with this response (quoted above).
What exactly does it mean, under your view, for something to be ‘objective’, then? You are clarified that truth is all that is objective to you, but not really what objectivity is to you.
Furthermore, a law is a definite behavior of nature; not something that simply does not change. E.g., an immutable cup is not a law.

Everything in reality, all iota of matter and even dreams, all of it, yes, everything, partakes of fear.

I do not know what this would mean other than that there is a universal mind or set of minds that are the fundamental building blocks of reality that are driven primarily by fear; and I don’t see any good evidence that this would be true.

Perfection is singular.

What does that mean? Perfection is a state of something where it ideal.

Again, truth does not apply to states.

That doesn’t make any sense. This would entail that it cannot be true or false that “I ran yesterday”.

Are you just noting that truth is absolute?

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

My friend, you are an idealist then. You are saying that reality is fundamental mind and not matter.

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.

Unfortunately, I am still not following what you mean. It seems perfectly contradictory so far (with regard to the above quote). What are you trying to convey by it being everything and only one-third of everything?

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.

It does not follow that if there are thoughts, then there is a soul, a unified mind that exists in reality.

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.

Admittedly, I do not understand your position yet.

I tried to trim this down after the fact. It was like 3-4 times larger before. Hopefully its still succinct and coherent.

I appreciate it! (:

Bob

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

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.

The throwing monkey thinks that Chk'ka has Stockholm syndrome. And he's been psychosomatic against vinegar containing products ever since that Quepos Norwegian tourist incident. You just don't know how hard it's been on him. And his moon is in Mercury! Ugh, the monkanity!

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

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.

Part of why theistic systems are muddled. — Banno

As if non-theistic aren't.

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

Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.

But in culture at large, in day-to-day dealings with people, "The other person is wrong/inferior" is probably the most common explanation for differences in how people understand morality. Even at a forum like this, "You're wrong/inferior" tends to at least lurk behind so many posters' arguments.

It's not clear what determines the right way to understand morality, but it seems to be central to a person's sense of morality to take for granted that they know, in an axiomatic manner, what is moral and what isn't.

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

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/...]"

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.

I enjoyed your recent chat with .

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

Yes, I get that. I agree.

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.

How does one read between the lines of a one-liner?

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

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.

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.

@Bob Ross, Antonio Rosamini's thought has been recommended to me as something of a resuscitation of ancient ethics. I have not read him in detail, but you may find his Principles of Ethics helpful, especially chapter two (beginning on page 28).

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

Thank you for sharing! I will give it a look.

I am honestly starting to think goodness is simply identical to 'being in self-harmony and self-unity'; and flourishing, prosperity, is simply what a standard, biological organism is going to need in order to completely actualize their self-harmony and self-unity.

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 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.

The trouble with all choice is that there are so very many bad ones and only one perfection. I have found that people that lean in with where you seem to be going are often moral subjectivists. Instead of respecting the objective nature of morality and the good, they just err on the side of doubting everything, even the good. That is not the 'way'. One must morally decide on what good is and stand for that. That means not only making moral propositions as statements but acting accordingly, intentionally, and with force.

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

I disagree, entirely.

The simplest explanation is that moral statements are intended because they are partial resonances with what is ... objectively good. It is a weak point of view in my opinion that sees control in every 'should'. The point of any valid 'should' is that it indeed points to an intent or suggests an intent in alignment with objective good. That has proper resonance. Many and most choosers feel inside themselves the difficulty of making proper moral choices. And they excuse themselves from those choices by teaming up with all other immoralities. They collectively suggest, oh, see, this is about power. Nope. It is about generating the most happiness for the most people. And that path is the hardest path there is. I get it. It's easy to be lazy or self-indulgent or cowardly, the three main sins. They all team up to make reality easier to handle. This is the Pragmatic short-cut. Lower those expectations! Intentional failure by aiming at less than best is unwise and immoral.

Yes, being strong and not weak is wise. That means you do not turn the other cheek in shame. You do not weaken yourself by so doing. Likewise you do not take the hit that matters, the deep harm. You catch that blow and defend it with everything you have. Misunderstanding the meaning of turning the other cheek is not wise. It is an expression that should be powerful, not an expression of powerlessness.

this does not take away from the fact that there is such a thing as kindness — Bob Ross

You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure. :grin:

This doesn't really negate my example though...