This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

A group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we do some morals?"

The rest of the group stares and one says, "What?"

They all go back to chewing.

As a group, Mennonites aren't opposed to vaccines. Apparently these people were.

Apocalypticists like Camping have been around for thousands of years. That's coming from deep within the human psyche, not today's weirdness. Our time isn't really very bad compared to the 20th Century. That's demonstrated by the fact that we wince at change. We aren't used to it, but humans are incredibly adaptable. Have a little faith in us.

All of it is meaningless without the reasoning behind it. — Sam26

I don't think morality can be derived from any logical arguments. In fact, logic is as likely to be the ally of evil as much as good.

Good comes seeing ourselves in one another. That's probably the most mystical answer.

It's a call to think about the way you see people. Do you judge by appearances? Do you assume that if someone is sick and poor, that they must have done something to deserve this? Or do you understand that it can happen to anyone of us?

There have been various attempts to address this issue, but in my opinion, they fail. — Sam26

We just have two different views of the nature of morality. I'm with Augustine, 'Love and do what you will.'. It's not about propositions, it's about love.

But these differences are what make the topic interesting, right?

Who here thinks there is no difference between what they want and what is right? — Banno

If you're alone on an island it's the same thing. The social aspect of morality is better explained by potent emotion rather than dead propositions.

It's always a bit more complicated... — Banno

Yea. I said "first and foremost" to try to ward off the impression that there is no more to it than emotion. Emotion is the wind in that particular sail, though. Don't have any comment on weird interpretations of murder or nappies. :grin:

in a social context. — Banno

Allen murdered Shelley's son. Murder is wrong because of the way the community reacts to it, and that reaction is emotional.

One act of abuse is like a pebble in a pond, sending out waves of grief, and rage, and pain through the community. Those waves travel down through time, echoes upon echoes of the original sin.

Give us an argument for why morality isn't emotion first and foremost. So far you've just offered hand waving.

It's what you do, not what you feel or think, that counts, isn't it? — Banno

Morality is about what we think and feel about what we do.

By looking to what we might do, we bypass the opacity of thinking and feeling, refocusing instead on our acts of volition, and how we might change things — Banno

So dismiss thinking and feeling and focus on what we do. This is a recipe for understanding morality?

The Torah, for example, provides the direction for everything — Hanover

Including infectious disease control. It's like a blueprint for a civilization in a little package.

And you are not born into an abyss. — Banno

:up:

Bootstrapping — Banno

A computer bootstraps from ROM. You're not a blank slate. Some things are innate, and brought out by experience.

Virtue ethics. Growth. — Banno

But how do you know which direction to grow in? An external set of rules? Or things you were born knowing (as in Meno's Paradox).

I was thinking more of Aristotle. — Banno

What was his view?

If it's something you're born with why do we have to teach children right from wrong? — Sam26

You can't teach a child right from wrong.

disagree. "Morality" develops over time, as one learns from and interacts with others. It's about becoming a better person - about developing values and virtues. — Banno

This is the ancient Jewish view, just substitute "interaction with others" with interaction with God's word. It has strengths and weaknesses like all views.

Well, yes, but it's more than that. It's not just my or your feelings here - we all agree that kicking puppies is not an honourable activity. Why? — Banno

Morality isn't a matter of public agreement. It's something you were born with. This is the Persian view. This is the problem with arguing with Christianity, it's got at least 4 different cultural perspectives on morality in it. Some of them directly conflict. This makes it a very dynamic and flexible religion.

So is believing "One ought not kick puppies" an act of faith? — Banno

No, it's a matter of feelings.

The command comes from the conviction or belief that kicking puppies is wrong. — Sam26

What do you mean by "wrong"?

We don't. That's kinda the point. — Banno

I agree.

You're saying morality rests upon a foundation of true statements. I think it's the other way around. Moral sensibility comes first. Statements are an after thought, and beyond specialized philosophical domains, they have no use. The command has use, so it's the command that's meaningful. — frank

My view is that the belief that kicking puppies is wrong isn't based on any justification, it's foundational like the rules of chess. It's a hinge. — Sam26

You're saying morality rests upon a foundation of true statements. I think it's the other way around. Moral sensibility comes first. Statements are an after thought, and beyond specialized philosophical domains, they have no use. The command has use, so it's the command that's meaningful.

One use is in teaching someone about right and wrong and how to treat other animals. I don't have to use the command when teaching — Sam26

I don't think you're catching my little argument. :blush:

as part of an inference. — Banno

From what reasoning did you infer that it's wrong to kick puppies?

Meaning is use. Of what use is asserting that "It's wrong to kick puppies" other than to say, "Don't kick puppies.". Tractatus.

So you are saying that it is not true that we ought not kick puppies? — Banno

No, I'm saying that commands aren't truth apt.

it is true that one ought not kick puppies; — Banno

This is the same as asserting that one ought not kick puppies. Asserting that is just another way to phrase the command, "Don't kick puppies."

And commands are not truth apt.

"Don't kick puppies for fun" is true — Banno

Commands aren't truth apt.

If someone disagrees with you about doctrine, we do not just have a disagreement. The other is a heretic and any means to change their tune are justified. If someone does not accept Christ, say, the difference is not just a difference, but justifies any means to convert them. Do I have to recount examples?
I'm not saying there are not non-religious examples of the same behaviour. Any radical conviction (faith) can be the basis violence and cruelty. — Ludwig V

Oh. But in the ancient world people usually respected foreign gods. If you visited a foreign town, you would first go pay respect to their gods and then go about your business.

Religious intolerance (the idea of false gods) came later. It's not so much about knowing divine will as believing that there is only one true divinity, which might be related to psychological integration.

There is a place for doubt as well as faith. — Banno

Can I quote you on that?

The conviction that one knows the will of God is the most dangerous religious belief of them all. — Ludwig V

Dangerous?

So you don't have faith in anything? Even in the human race?

Anyway, for Kierkegaard, faith is about accepting the world as it is, and accepting oneself in spite of being an asshole. The stories where God shows up as an asshole are pertinent. I like the fact that the Hebrew divinity has a dark side. There's less of a problem of evil, which Christianity has always struggled with.

If you're convinced that you're all good, how will you notice the signs that you're starting to turn into a Nazi due to bitterness or whatever. It's better to know that you're capable of becoming a monster so you can take steps to change course. You have to start with accepting that you have that dark side. Kierkegaard was right.

Nothing in that proposal implied self-sufficiency; quite the opposite. Interdependence leads to trust and a better quality of life.

But that is hard to explain to 'Mercans. — Banno

I think you're overlooking that ideals are pictures of what we want to be rather than what we are. It's the sheep-like culture that idealizes individuality. It's the independent minded people who prize self sacrifice for the community. To understand culture, look for the oppositions and contradictions.

We should "sacrifice what may be in your personal interest for... ...what preserves the social order"?

Fascism it is, then. — Banno

Isn't this Chinese morality?

The story of Noah is a garbled version of an episode out of the epic of Gilgamesh.

I saw quite a bit int he story, on which I have been expounding. — Banno

It was worthwhile then?

Or are these comments just designed to mitigate the discomfort of taking the story literally? — Banno

Kierkegaard saw something profound in it. You see nothing. If I see nothing in Guernica, does that say something about the painting? Or about me?

I was recently told by an 80 year old that it gets better every year. :grimace: