It's all about coming to better(more acceptable) terms about the same things(memories, traumas, events).

Check out the efficacy of thought/belief!

:wink:

It always takes an other. That's all I'm saying my friend. Always. In isolation there is no possibility of recognizing one's own mistakes in thought/belief, and/or unhealthy habits of mind, whatever they may amount to.

I do find the notion of intuition to be without a common referent that existed in it's entirety prior to our accounts of it. It's use - without delineation - leaves me wondering what the speaker is talking about. Given that it is being claimed to give rise to moral judgment, I wonder if that is indicative of a claim regarding initial emergence/source/origen of all moral judgment or if it simply points out that some moral judgment happens automatically after one has a basis of moral thought/belief from which to judge.
— creativesoul

I think that intuition can be both instinctual and conditioned by culture, and we can also intentionally condition ourselves. — praxis

I would agree. Like thought/belief, there are different 'levels' of evolutionary complexity.

The Fox and the Grapes is a story that teaches a moral lesson.
— creativesoul

It’s an example of cognitive dissonance. The moral is to not lie to ourselves? What does it matter if we lie to ourselves if there are no other selves? In any case, we’d only lie to ourselves in this way because we have an image of ourselves that we’re interested in maintaining in relation to others.

A story of moral sour grapes might be something like a wolf (a more social species) eating a whole rabbit by itself and not sharing it with the pack. Because the wolf has a strong self image of strictly adhering to pack norms, not to mention that pack exile could mean death or at least no longer having the potential for gene propagation, the wolf chooses to believe that he wasn’t at fault and blames the rabbit for being a little sour, and claiming that none of the other wolves would have wanted it. It was actually virtuous of him to not subject the pack to the sourness of the rabbit, so he comes to believe and claim. — praxis

To be clear...

This entire project - the setting out of the origen of all morals - must be approached from a method lacking moral value judgment. This is a meta-ethical discussion. All morals must be accounted for.

With that in mind...

I'm not offering assent/dissent and/or agreement/disagreement of the moral value. I'm not condoning/condemning. I'm not offering a value judgment at all. Rather, The Fox and the Grapes is a fable that teaches a moral lesson, or so it is said. It's one of those stories that after reading it, a teacher will often ask "So, what's the moral of the story?"

The specifics do not matter here. What does matter is what that particular example has in common with each and every other example called "moral". It's about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, and often it can also be about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That's what all things "moral" have in common that makes them so. There are no exceptions. I'm not making this up. I'm not defining this into existence. I'm not assuming what's at issue.

Rather, I'm taking proper account of what counts as being "moral". You example fits in perfectly, just like all the rest. It's deduction, not induction. We look at all the examples. We remove all of that which is subject to individual particulars. We look at what's left and assess it's relevance/adequacy for deducing a universal criterion.

That which is moral is always about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behavior.

Moral - in kind - as compared/contrasted to moral judgment which has it's counterpart immoral and is a synonym for "good", "right", etc.

Follow me?

To those who think/believe in self-therapy???

Can't be done. Cannot see your own shortcomings/flaws/mistakes in thought/belief. Takes an other. As csal just skirted around... it takes another who can be trusted and will not reinforce unhealthy habits of thought/belief.

Well whatever gets you through the night. But that's more or less what Herman said about resilience - maintaining a social scene through difficulties, taking an active but collaborative stance... and maybe those 3 years were crucial. — unenlightened

Yes. I read through the resilience part, and those descriptions are pretty accurate, although in my case at least there were several other factors I think that got me through the night(as a youth). To be clear though, while nearly all the boxes were checked, some more often than others, not all of those things happened continually and/or throughout my youth.

I consider myself lucky. You can consider me however you like...

I would guess if you scored nine but have no symptoms of trauma, you are probably unusual. There is talk in the wiki, and in the book of "resilience". — unenlightened

The symptoms of smoking... parents smoked... grandparents smoked...

Sexual promiscuity... well, I am easy on the eyes, I suppose. Couple that with more liberal views, alcohol(sometimes), and women who like/want sex without further expectations, and...

I'm definitely unusual, if we go by what others say and/or how most others act, talk, and/or think...

The score took me off guard. I was actually laughing, like... really???

I'd rather be lucky than good.

Of course, I've done quite a bit of self-reflection. Long before this thread I realized something very important. The first three years or so of my life was in a very loving, stable, nurturing, liberal(not too much), healthy environment. Even afterwards... everyone always seemed to like me... no matter where we lived... no matter what sorts of people I found myself around... I seemed to be able to make friends and get along, to blend in(sort of)... Teachers throughout middle school always liked/loved me. None were allowed to get too close though. I was always needing to find a new best friend. Usually was a group of three of four. Even now though, not many are allowed too close(that may be a consequence?). I can walk away like the CIA... :wink:

12 schools before high school graduation...

Survival mechanisms are funny things, huh?

We're moving in that direction already!

:wink:

All thought/belief consist entirely of correlations drawn between different things. All thought/belief are meaningful to the thinking/believing creature. All thought/belief presupposes it's own correspondence to that which has happened... somewhere along 'the line'.

Those are three basic statements about thought/belief in general. The first is the criterion you've asked about.

Philosophy has been relegated as "dead" as a result of specialization and all of the irresolvable seemingly astoundingly ridiculous things that philosophy proper has arrived at.

It's still quite relevant. Ethics in particular. Applied, that is... right?

You're running different issues together.

I work from a criterion for thought/belief which is universal. There are no examples to the contrary.

As far as the rest goes, we're talking about a source of all morals. The origen of every single one. Different perspectives may arrive at different answers, and indeed those answers are not necessarily incompatible. However, their compatibility requires a framework that can effectively exhaust them all. Hence, my universal criterion for what counts as both "moral" and "thought/belief".

Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from?

But in the sociopathical delusion of the ethically convicted one, abides an unalterable principle, which no reason or societal authority can hope to budge. — Merkwurdichliebe

Unshakable certainty(conviction) in one's own thought/belief is not always 'a bad thing'. It is certainly not enough for one to be a sociopath. All sociopaths may have such conviction, but not everyone with such conviction is a sociopath.

Here we're getting into the realm of that which did not exist in it's entirety prior to our account of it. Such is true of many common notions, including many used in ethical/moral discourse.

Moral thought is most appositely thought of as being concerned with one's relation to others. Concern about how ones' actions will affect one's own life is more properly thought of as being in the province of ethical thought. If you lived alone in the forest, there would be no morality for you but there would be ethical considerations, in other words. — Janus

The Fox and the Grapes is a story that teaches a moral lesson.

You're quibbling over criterion. You've made a universal claim about what counts as "moral". That claim contradicts actual conventional and common use.

You've also made a universal claim about no thought/belief being prior to competent language use.

You've also claimed that thinking/believing could happen prior to language.

These are not problems with my reading comprehension.

How many times do I have to tell you that under my definitions having or holding thoughts or beliefs is not the same as thinking or believing in the kind of "proto" or primordial sense that we might attribute to animals. — Janus

So you're ok with the idea that there can be thinking/believing without thought/belief?

Are you just objecting to my use of "having" thought/belief? If so that's a bit petty considering the account I have to offer, don't you think?

We aught get back to the distinction between ethical thought/belief and adopted pre-reflective.

Yeah yeah yeah...

:yum:

Before you know it, you'll be on board...

Your criterion for what counts as being moral(in kind) cannot be substituted in many instances of the use of "moral" when it's referring to kinds.
— creativesoul

Give me a demonstrative example, then — Janus

Some morals are the results of lessons. You know, the moral of the story...

The Fox and the Grapes is not about behaviour towards others. There are all sorts of morally relevant thoughts and beliefs that are about one's own behaviour and it's affect/effect upon onself. Those are not concerning behaviour towards others. They are moral thought/belief nonetheless.

...one cannot have thoughts or beliefs, period, until one has acquired the requisite level of linguistic competency. — Janus

...I have already acknowledged that we could reasonably say that something we might think of as thinking and/or believing is possible pre-linguistically. — Janus

So, which is it?

The toughest part of using thought/belief - as a foundational criterion - is being able to effectively account for all the different ones by virtue of translating them all into terms of the content of the correlation themselves. I myself am not even close to being sold that I am capable of doing so.

Work in process.

Indeed.

:blush:

Cheers.

:cool:

Although it does not yet seem germane, it may become so later. Just to be clear, on my view a thought/belief is justified if it is well grounded. Being well grounded does not require being argued for and/or convincing anyone else. Hence, a justified belief does not require convincing anyone else either. This makes perfect sense in light of each and every paradigm shift.

But yes... I'm attempting to remain coherent.

Yes. It seems so.

If I could buy you a drink, I would.

We're talking about the source/origen of morals. The discourse has moved to talk about morals in terms of moral thought/belief and what counts as that. The criterion can account for all morals. Your criterion for what counts as being moral(in kind) cannot be substituted in many instances of the use of "moral" when it's referring to kinds. Therefore, it's inadequate in explanatory power. The criterion being used exhausts the one you've put forth and effectively passes the test of salva veritate that your proposed criterion fails.

So, the point here is that you're using an inherently inadequate criterion for what counts as being "moral". There's another as well.

...one cannot have thoughts or beliefs, period, until one has acquired the requisite level of linguistic competency... — Janus

This is to say that there is no thought/belief at all(period) unless the candidate forming, having, and/or holding thought/belief is competent with language. That is to say that all thought/belief is existentially dependent upon competent language use. It only follows that there is no thought/belief formation prior arriving at the level of one's mastery of language that you deem competent. That would be to admit that there were no thought/belief necessary for simple language use such as first learning the names of things. It only follows that the very first case of competent language use preceded the very first case of thought/belief formation. The very first case of one speaking in clear meaningful common language preceded one's very first thought.

That is impossible.

That's just a quick and dirty run down regarding the consequences of what you're putting forth as criterion for what counts as "moral" and what counts as "thought" or "belief". It's all unacceptable.

Some moral feelings and beliefs, perhaps the ones that you're vaguely referencing, are existentially dependent upon competent language use. We've already begun to discuss these kinds. However, they are not the first kinds. Thus, they're relevant to an overall understanding of moral thought/belief. They are not an example of the first ones. I asked you about the feelings, because that is where we are in terms of the evolution of thought/belief into morals.

I'll get back to where we were momentarily...

Linguistic competency is not existentially dependent upon human thought/belief.
— creativesoul

I didn't say it was. — Janus

That is the consequence of what you're putting forth. — creativesoul

One cannot think about trees unless one has language?

:worry:

I thought that the conversation was getting to the point where we were drawing a distinction between the different complexity levels that moral thought/belief can arrive at. Ethical ones were being described as the more complex conscious ones replete with thinking about one's own adopted moral basis.

Having and/or holding thoughts differs from forming them. I'm loose with language in that regard.

one cannot have thoughts or beliefs, period, until one has acquired the requisite level of linguistic competency... — Janus

Linguistic competency is not existentially dependent upon human thought/belief.

That is the consequence of what you're putting forth. Reductio Ad Absurdum is grounds for outright rejection.

The Fox and the Grapes...

A moral lesson?

Not by your standard of "moral"...

And yet, it is.

Are you saying that one cannot have thought/belief that is concerned with behaviour towards others until and/or unless s/he has begun language acquisition?

All moral feelings(feelings about behaviour towards others) are informed by culture?

...

So one does not have moral thought, belief, or feelings until they are able to think in those terms? Nah, that can't be what you mean.

Certainly one can concern themselves with behaviour toward others without being able to say that. One could realize that what they've done harms another without being concerned about it in the sense of moral concern that arises from complex language use.

All moral things share a common core of different elements. Moral feelings are those about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Moral thought... the same. Moral belief... the same. Moral discourse... the same.

What counts as "moral" on your view?

Janus
Certainly. Our moral feelings are informed by language use.
— creativesoul

Moral beliefs are certainly informed by language. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some.

Our moral feelings are not "raw" or merely instinctive affects, but culturally mediated, conceptually, linguistically and narrationally elaborated affective responses. — Janus

Some

I'm not sure what you mean by "parse these out". — Janus

Some moral feelings are informed by language. Some moral beliefs are informed by language.

Our moral feelings are not "raw" or merely instinctive affects, but culturally mediated, conceptually, linguistically and narrationally elaborated affective responses. — Janus

Moral feelings and moral beliefs need further parsing. Not all are informed by language use.

Certainly. Our moral feelings are informed by language use.
— creativesoul

Moral beliefs are certainly informed by language. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some.

I was only speaking poetically. Oops — Merkwurdichliebe

Poetic philosophy tends towards equivocation and/or multiplying unnecessary entities.

Certainly. Our moral feelings are informed by language use.

A proper account would need to be able to parse these out, wouldn't you agree?

Cool. Don't feel sorry for me though. I'm good. More than good. I actually laughed at my score because I didn't think my life was all that bad. Still don't.

Interesting though that you didn't feel loved, and I did. Perhaps feeling loved holds more weight for us than the other considerations...