Even your take imports that to ignore a NHO would be 'wrong'. — AmadeusD
Do you explain, predict, and revise, Investigate the objection, and use Assertive/testable claims? Then you are doing science.
DO you express loyalty, identity, hope, defend against the objection, and use declaratives, commissives, and performatives? Then that's not science.
Science or faith?
Yes, but they have every reason to believe that the currently accepted canon of scientific knowledge is based on actual observation, experiment and honest and accurate reporting by scientists. That this is so is evidenced by the great advances in technologies we see all around us.
The source of knowledge for established science is observation and experiment.
The question is as to what is the source contained in the religious texts if not faith in revelation? Would you call that knowledge?
Would you say it is based on evidence or logic?
Is that your "evidence"? That being homosexual is a bad orientation because it goes against the "nature qua essence of a human"? Are you an expert on human nature and the essence of being human, Bob? You don't think that might be a tad presumptuous?
I think you mean it doesn't appeal to you, and that's fine. It's the next step of universalizing what doesn't appeal to you personally where you go wrong.
It's been sad to watch your thinking going downhill, Bob.
Yes, but they have every reason to believe that the currently accepted canon of scientific knowledge is based on actual observation, experiment and honest and accurate reporting by scientists. — Janus
Nevertheless, to say, "I don't believe in morality because I don't believe in categorical/exceptionless norms," is not right, given that morality is not reducible to categorical/exceptionless norms. — Leontiskos
takes themselves to be doing and seeking things that are right and not wrong, good and not bad — Leontiskos
you could say that what ought to be done is the right thing to do — Leontiskos
Very fair, but that isn't my position. My position is that "wrong" and "right" are ambiguous, amorphous and probably indefinable terms which create a problem for morality to do what it purports to do. Your concept is askance from this, but it seems tp want the same security people find in : — AmadeusD
My position is that "wrong" and "right" are ambiguous, amorphous and probably indefinable terms which create a problem for morality to do what it purports to do. — AmadeusD
I can't relate to it, at all, despite it being relatively sound in form. It doens't speak to me about right and wrong, and therefore doesn't seem to be a moral system. It's a system for making decisions based on data towards what can, in most instances, be considered arbitrary ends. I know you feel that a collective agreement shifts that. I do not, so impasse there for sure . — AmadeusD
So you want to criticize people who use the words "right" and "wrong," because you think the words are meaningless. And then when I avoid using these words that you deem to be meaningless, you criticize me for not using them? It seems like you've erected a game where I lose by default even before I begin. — Leontiskos
What "conception"? — Leontiskos
then we have no candidate which could exist or not exist. — Leontiskos
Cambridge entry — Leontiskos
What is its fatal flaw? That it doesn't mean anything? — Leontiskos
First note that the claim, "That's [inadmissible]" is a NH, and every negative NH entails the claim, "You should not do that." — Leontiskos
which actions are generically moral and which actions aren't. — Leontiskos
it still seems like color exists. — Leontiskos
I suspect that even you, when you look back on a bad mistake you've made in life, could catch yourself half-consciously saying, "That was the wrong thing to do." — Leontiskos
If I want to die, I might very well seek out poisonous beverages.
Faith involves trust but is not just trust. It includes something more. I've set this out in detail in my previous posts.
The mark of faith is that when challenged, one's commitment is not to be subject to reevaluation, but to be defended.
The mark of rationality and science is when challenged, not to simply defend, but reevaluating and reassessing one's commitment.
My system of morality is not something you have asked about. What i consider right and wrong is bespoke, as I take it to be for everyone. That doesn't mean people's 'right' can't overlap, or that the ydon't regularly do so - that is how morality works.
But I couldn't possibly argue that anyone else need care what I think. If right and wrong are just so, no theory can move someone. That is my contention. We just do our best to find people with whom our bespoke boundaries work well. There is some force in this - societies have a profound effect on what people think is right and wrong, personally. But there are no universals there, imo. — AmadeusD
1c. We all make non-hypothetical ought-judgments (NHs for short - plural)
2c. Our NHs are able to be evaluated, both by ourselves in retrospect, and by others
3c. These evaluations are themselves NHs
4c. We respect these evaluative NHs, or at least some of them
5c. Therefore, at least some evaluative NHs have force
6c. Therefore, the "rhymes and reasons" are not arbitrary
[...]
A) You decide to drink water, raising it to your lips (1c)
B) A complete stranger tells you not to drink the water (2c, 3c, 5c)
C) You decide not to drink the water, or at the very least you give the stranger's utterance due consideration (4c) — Leontiskos
I don't defend that conception as a coherent theory - it just, plain and simple, is what people mean when they speak about morality. — AmadeusD
What? No. That I don't understand this the way those who defend that conception do has nothing to do with whether it exists. It exists, and is 'used' constantly by most people. That is what people mean when they say 'moral'. It is 'right'. What they mean you are free to interrogate. I did, found it wanting, and rejected it as a coherent theory. — AmadeusD
I take it you more-or-less feel the same and want to propose a system on other terms. That's fine. — AmadeusD
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/morality here it is, and the first entry contains exactly my conception in slightly more verbose terms. — AmadeusD
Hmmm, it doesn't seem to prima facie as I see it. "That's inadmissible" is a pure observation. There is no imperative in that statement. There is, hiding, the potential for the next move to be prescriptive. This is purely descriptive. That utterance doesn't even require that someone intended to admit the item in question. Just that someone noted it wasn't admissible. — AmadeusD
Herein lies the problem with almost all 'ought's, even NH ones. "That's inadmissible. Don't attempt to admit it, as you will be admonished by the court and waste your client's money" for instance. I might just disagree that it's inadmissible. I disagreed with the Egyptian gentleman in his assessment of my drinking water in Egypt. — AmadeusD
But in any case, there's nothing in it that makes any action 'correct' or 'right' other than in terms of some arbitrary end (other than, as noted, death). — AmadeusD
Maybe I find it extremely hard to understand where the notion that these sorts of values are universal comes from, or that shared values provides morality per se, rather than a working execution or moral concepts which may be quite disparate (and in fact, need be given the ambiguity of 'right' and 'wrong'. But there's intuition there). — AmadeusD
Your thesis here seems to be that you have a moral system and your wife has a moral system and everyone else has a moral system, and that none of these moral systems really interact with or shape one another (e.g. you say the Christian and the Muslim have different values and that's that) — Leontiskos
If the “rhymes and reasons” were arbitrary then none of this interaction between moral systems would be possible — Leontiskos
Specifically, my contention is that <If there were no substantially shared values, then moral persuasion and influence between individuals would be impossible; But it is not impossible; Therefore, there must be substantially shared values>. — Leontiskos
I'm not convinced that something which is incoherent can be described as a unity. The only way to rigorously define an system which is thought to be incoherent is to delineate its contradictions. An incoherence is a mishmash, and thus if the description does not point up the mishmash it is not a description of an incoherent system — Leontiskos
With respect, "A set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character," actually strikes me as considerably different than, "The debate between right and wrong." — Leontiskos
For example, when you regret a past action and judge that you should have acted otherwise, you are engaged in a non-hypothetical ought-judgment, but not an imperative or a prescription. — Leontiskos
(A) requires that you think drinking water is right. (B) requires that the Egyptian thinks it is not right. (C) requires that you are persuaded that it is not right. (C2) requires that you are not persuaded that it is not right. — Leontiskos
And if you give his NH due consideration then you yourself are assuming a shared value — Leontiskos
I think NHs really exist. — Leontiskos
you can't make the guilt go away by changing your morals, right? — frank
I don't believe Banno or @Janus are even attempting to give a clear definition of what faith is. Instead, they are using notions without clarifying what the idea of it is that we should use for the discussion. I agree that anyone that believes faith is belief despite the evidence is deploying a straw man of theism: I am just not sure if they are even committing themselves to that definition. — Bob Ross
No quite, but that they do so brute. There's no particularly convincing principle that would ensure people are moved by anyone else's moral views, but to become closer to avoid rejection (I assume you would agree that this is visible in social groups whereby the opinion of the group prevents members from dissenting at risk of either ejection or abuse). There's development, but it seems lateral to me. So maybe I'm being a little hasty, and merely positing that moral progess isn't coherent. — AmadeusD
The first seems correct. — AmadeusD
The second is non sequitur in a sense. — AmadeusD
That we influence each other's values doesn't give me a reason to think there are any moral facts about the interactions.
[...]
That could be wrong, but it is why I can't get on with the transition being made to the conclusion here. I agree, there are substantially shared values and I'd be an idiot to deny that - but that this makes interpersonal communication moral doesn't work for me. — AmadeusD
The "influence" you speak of only seems to occur in intellectual exchanges, not moral ones. And there, rarely, as this exchange is showing hehehe. — AmadeusD
I have done so, though, plenty of times, throughout this exchange: The reliance on "right" and "wrong" are incoherent in a theory which requires that they are set by the theory itself. — AmadeusD
Understandable. The former is simply the result of the latter, and given there is no universal moral system, that seems implicit, and hte only thing available for discussion. Perhaps I should have noted this. — AmadeusD
That is plainly hypothetical? — AmadeusD
I don't see this moving my comment on the structure of that exchange. B to C is a matter of fact. — AmadeusD
Would you say that someone saying "Hey, its raining, take an umbrella" and you doing so, means that was a morally forceful suggestion? I don't — AmadeusD
If death isn't a possible outcome, then the suggestion is arbitrary in a moral sense (for me, and on
my understanding of common conceptions)). — AmadeusD
As do I. just don't see them as moral propositions. — AmadeusD
Or, I am considered their values as compared to mine and understanding whether or not, in the exact context, their value might be more practically effective. Is that still moral, to you? — AmadeusD
Tell me if this is this a fair characterization of your view. — Leontiskos
and the values never change — Leontiskos
So we can mutually influence people who have overlapping values, but we cannot mutually influence people who do not have overlapping values. — Leontiskos
It sounds like you agree with the conclusion, but you think it does not lead to some other, unmentioned conclusion. — Leontiskos
Everyone has them, but nothing guarantees that one person's set of values will overlap with another person's — Leontiskos
I guess I would want to know your criteria for determining whether moral influence has occurred. — Leontiskos
Or do you want to proffer an entirely different understanding of incoherence than the one I have offered? — Leontiskos
Do you think regrets are hypothetical? — Leontiskos
You thought it was right (or at least permissible) to drink the water, and he led you to believe that it is not right (i.e. not the right thing to do). — Leontiskos
You told me that we need to use words like "right" and "wrong" if we are to talk about morality, and now I am using those words. — Leontiskos
Okay, but why not? Do you have an argument? — Leontiskos
What is a morally forceful suggestion and when does some suggestion fail to count as one? — Leontiskos
You are saying <If death is not a possible outcome, then the suggestion which bears on the outcome is not moral> — Leontiskos
If I am right in this, then it seems that your values or value-hierarchy has been influenced by the Egyptian. — Leontiskos
You shouldn't have to do that if morals are a choice. Morals seem to come from outside, that was my point. — frank
I understand they seem to, but there's no way to assess this beyond "people influence each other". — AmadeusD
We can just leave it at that. No need to make peace with a worldview. Is there? — frank
The mark of faith is that when challenged, one's commitment is not to be subject to reevaluation, but to be defended.
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.