Comments

  • Why be moral?


    Okay.

    What about the rest of what I said?
  • Why be moral?
    I don't care if I ought or ought not promote happiness or if I ought or ought not cause suffering. I'm going to promote happiness and not cause suffering either way.Michael

    I can acknowledge that the world would be a different, better place if everyone acted with kindness and empathy and charity, but whether or not kindness and empathy and charity are moral makes no difference.Michael

    Whether or not kindness and empathy and charity make the world a better place does matter though.

    I'm curious if I have the general gist of what you've been arguing in this thread.


    Seems to me like you're explaining in general terms what makes the world a better place in a manner that allows/permits us to dispose of the term/notion/conception of "moral". That is to say that this, this, and this makes the world a better place, but I do not care if those things are called moral or not, I'll do them because I believe that the world will be a better place if I do, but I'm unwilling to insist that others should do the same.

    It seems you're not okay with insisting that others have some obligation to share your beliefs about what makes the world a better place.

    If that's close... I agree. They have to get there own their own. One cannot be forced to care about others.
  • Why be moral?
    Seems naturalist to me.
  • Why be moral?
    Why be moral?


    :smile:


    That's like asking...

    Why be kind?

    Why do what's best for most everyone concerned/included?

    Why glorify doing good for goodness' sake?

    Why ought we make concerted effort to think about how our behaviour effects/affects the world, and subsequently tailor it to help bring forth goodness while causing the least harm?

    Why do what one believes is most helpful and least harmful?

    Why be virtuous?

    Why be admirable?

    Why do our best to affect/effect positive change in the world?


    So, why be moral?

    Hopefully because we care about everyone who/that is affected/effected by our behaviour.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    Sometimes there are choices other than just faith or authority There have been times when neither faith nor authority had things right.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    That presupposes a subject capable of complex metacognition.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    You haven’t answered either:

    What makes the statement true; or
    Where your confidence comes from.

    Neither of your answers are in any way adequate.
    AmadeusD

    Well, if I've not answered then what are you possibly referring to when writing "Neither of your answers are in any way adequate"???

    :brow:

    First question...

    Correspondence is an emergent relation between what is thought and/or believed about what is going on and what is going on. When what is thought about what's going on is 'equivalent' enough, or close enough to what is going on, then truth emerges. That is how meaningful true belief become real/actual/manifest/formed. That's what it takes. That's how correspondence 'between' belief about reality and reality(hence, meaningful true belief) emerges onto the world stage.

    If it is the case that we ought not kick puppies, then "we ought not kick puppies" is true.

    Are you questioning whether or not it is the case that we ought not kick puppies?
    creativesoul

    That was early on. Perhaps you missed it?

    The second question has not been asked. Those meaningful marks have not been presented to me in that order prior to now. Earlier you asked where my confidence came from when I said that if it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is also the case that we ought not kick puppies and vice versa. You queried regarding my confidence in making those claims. I answered as clearly, concisely, and completely as possible in the fewest meaningful marks possible to do so.

    I stand by that answer. I know what they both mean. They mean the exact same thing.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Since we can build on the simple fact of our agreement. We can discourage puppy kicking, try to avoid the temptation provided by puppies, or introduce sanctions against puppy kickers. All the bits we need for a moral practice still follow, without a grounding in deontology or consequentialism, and with precious little metaethics.Banno

    Can we tease this out a bit further?

    Would you agree with my saying that we need no 'rule giver', 'enforcer', and/or judge aside from ourselves if for no other reason than strictly because we are all we have? Since that's the case, then the mantra of "practice makes perfect" is the best approach we have. If that's all we have, then it's best for us to accept the facts and begin openly discussing which sorts of behaviours are better than others and why... without appealing to external judges and rule makers aside from ourselves.

    At some point we must discuss consequences lest we have no other basis upon which to ground our belief about what and/or which behaviour is best in some set of circumstances.

    Seems a brute fact to me. There is no need for an external judge, especially one of supernatural origin. Occam's razor applies. It is almost certainly the case that we humans 'make up the rules' governing our own behaviour. We are the ones who decide what is acceptable/unacceptable.

    That's the natural progression of human thought. We act. We reflect upon actions. Then, we reflect upon those reflections, ad infinitum. In this way, morality and moral discourse emerges.

    So, we arrive at not so much as admitting that codes of conduct are subject to influence by individual particulars, but insisting upon keeping that fact in mind and building upon it.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    Interesting. Thanks for that. Collective intentionality may dovetail nicely with my own position.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    Yup. I've been listening to/watching Searle lectures from time to time for a while now. Trying to keep the ontology closer to ground level. Dennett helps too!

    :cool:
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    Searle's status functions??? Institutional facts???
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    People threatening to hang Mike Pence are not enemies of the US either, I suppose...

    :roll:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Sedition is not a rebellion against the United States government. A rebellion against the United States is not an insurrection. Sedition is not an insurrection.



    I suppose you'd agree with all that?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    I'm conflating nothing. Sedition is enough.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellionNOS4A2

    Does not matter. Rebelling against the transfer of power with arms nonetheless is enough.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    No sedition.NOS4A2

    Rubbish. Sedition against the United States is both rebellion and insurrection. Trump and many congress members were involved, have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those already found guilty of sedition and seditious conspiracy... ahem... rebellion and insurrection against the United States.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    He has not been found guilty of any such thing.NOS4A2

    By anyone who looks.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Look again. Sedition is rebellion against the United States
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    That's a matter of enforcement... nothing else. Some people run stop signs too, and yet the cop doesn't ticket them. It's an offense nonetheless.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Well no... sedition and seditious conspiracy is enough. We have that too!
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Attempting to obstruct an official proceeding such as the peaceful transfer of power counts as an offense that disqualifies one. Offering those people aid and comfort also disqualifies one.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Evidently you're unaware of all the cases where some have plead guilty and/or been found guilty of precisely the language in the article. So, check... there are such people. Secondly, there are members in congress who have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those who've been found guilty by the facts in earlier court proceedings...

    Trump had and does as well, and that ought be check mate.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    The judge doesn't matter at this point.

    If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?

    They wouldn’t have the power because they would be barred from being in Congress.
    NOS4A2

    If they were members at the time they gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists, they would.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    Right. It seems to me that that article applies much much more broadly than is currently being applied. In other words, it is clear that a large number of current elected officials ought be removed from their office, and many of them are currently holding congressional positions.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Holding public office or being on the ballot does not exonerate one from the article.

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Holding public office prior to offering aid and comfort to insurrectionists does not exonerate one from the article.

    Just as the article prohibited confederate officials after the Civil War, it applies equally to those currently in congress who attempted to obstruct an official proceeding as well as all of those who've given aid and comfort to insurrectionists.

    If the power of enforcing the article was exclusively conferred to congress, it would be completely incapable of removing any members guilty of what the article sets out. Given that the very purpose of the article is to prohibit such members, it is clear that that interpretation is wrong.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    The purpose of the article is to prohibit insurrectionists and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists from holding public office. It makes no sense whatsoever to confer the power to execute/enforce the article to the very people who have given and continue to offer aid and comfort to insurrectionists.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    The judge doesn't matter at this point.

    If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else.NOS4A2

    How would that work if there were members in congress who were guilty of what the article sets out?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    If those guilty of what the amendment sets out won an election and were to hold public office and it were up to them to enforce it, it would defeat the very purpose of the amendment. They won't find themselves guilty.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    If this congress were responsible for enforcing it as written, they would be forced to conclude that they themselves were disqualified from holding their own positions. Well, a large portion of the republican members anyway.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    A congress full of insurrectionists. A congress full of folk who attempted to stop/obstruct an official proceeding. A congress of folk who continue to commit fraud against the American people.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    . Are you trying to say that in some form the agreement supersedes the legal requirement for a mortgage?AmadeusD

    No, I'm pointing out that without agreement there can be no mortgage, in the very same way, by the very same means that without obligation there can be no promise. Mortgages require agreement and promises require obligation because in both cases the one consists of the other much like an apple pie requires apples.
  • Getting rid of ideas


    Real... neither only in the mind nor mind independent. It's a matter of what ideas consist of.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Tell me how you would go about enforcing a property interest if there's no record anywhere of you having any interest in the property?

    Given I deal with this problem for my clients regularly - this should be quite interesting.
    AmadeusD

    Enforcing it is not the question. It's whether or not the agreement remains intact. The agreement is not physical. The record of it is.

    I'm not speaking for Banno, although I suspect he would agree.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    Weird. Those words were just used by you for the first time, and yet I'm somehow avoiding something that you've just now expressed.

    Odd indeed.

    Do you have a question that you've asked that I've not answered clearly enough?
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    You seem to be trying quite hard to avoid this, which was why I changed the question.AmadeusD

    I've no idea what you're on about. I think that you're misattributing meaning to my posts.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism


    I'm trying very hard to 'dovetail' the substantive to the minimalist version you voice.

    :razz:
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    ↪creativesoul Trouble is, "a state of affairs" traps folk into thinking about how things are, nti how they ought be. One of the issues with taking a substantive view of truth.Banno

    Yeah, I'm still working through all this... for me "states of affairs" are just what's happening at some specific time and place. It's a proxy for the term "reality" and the phrase "the way things are", etc.

    There's always Hume's guillotine. I see it. However, I think there's a way to render it toothless.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.