• KantRemember
    10
    Are you saying that objective morality depends on the situation? If not, do you mind elaborating and giving examples of X and Y?MoK

    Morality as a whole depends on agency and conscious beings, viz., rocks aren't moral or immoral, they're amoral, they just are. The objectivity of morality, however, is contingent on the valuing of life (or wellbeing) - and to reiterate, by 'value' I don't mean conscious intent.
    To give an example of X and Y: Iff we value well-being (X), then it is objectively true that suffering is bad (for the well-being of life) (Y).

    Quite oppositely, an understanding of morality and good linguistic skills are required to obey morality. How could one obey morality if he has no understanding of it? Linguistic skills are also required to pass the knowledge of morality from one generation to another. A rational agent who is not mentally evolved to understand morality just follows his feelings and interests.MoK

    I think in using the word understanding there are two underlying assertions - we could take understanding (of morality) to mean an understanding that an action in particular is right or wrong - which is what I was referring to with my Amazonian example, or an understanding of morality conceptually. Right or wrong, should or shouldn't, better or worse, all of these are in having agency - following your feelings and interests is still behaviour predicated in the assumption that whatever you're feeling is either right or wrong.

    The example of a rational agent who hasn't evolved to understand morality and saying they can't act morally is the same as saying a child couldn't do an action that is considered moral or immoral. From their frame of reference, they may not know they're acting morally or immorally but that doesn't mean they aren't (or are). You wouldn't say that my donation to charity is an amoral act just because I'm unaware that donating to charity is good.

    It does undermine the idea of objective morality. In all conflicts there are two sides each believes they are right and doing right. All conflict would be resolved if people as rational agents agree on objective morality. I still do not know what you mean by conditional objective morality though.MoK

    Objectivity doesn't entail the compulsion to act in such a way that aligns with it, or that humans would agree on it. Even still, it's not something that happens in an instant. Over millennia, we agreed, explicitly, or implicitly, that cannibalism is bad for the survival of our species, that slavery is bad, and I'm sure even today nobody agrees that war is good, it just so happens that the teleology behind is what we disagree on, not the act in itself.

    We have many bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Selfishness is related to one gene. Psychopaths have another common gene. Some people are not intelligent enough to understand morality. And many others. The only way to get rid of these bad genes is to either monitor unborn children and abort those who have bad genes and disallow people with bad genes to have a baby otherwise we have to deal with this problem that there is no solution for it. Whether people ethically have the right to follow this approach is subject to discussion.MoK

    I'd like to think most of us would agree that mass selective reproduction and weeding out those deemed to be genetically inferior is highly unethical.

    Morality is a very crucial concept when it comes to any society. I don't see how one can divorce sociology and morality.MoK

    What I mean is that sociology and morality/ethics are different subjects. A ethics professional would not be a qualified sociologist and vice versa.

    Yes, we shouldn't live under such conditions. But the question is why we still do. I think that Capitalism is a form of weak slavery. The minority takes advantage of the situation and gets the most profit while the majority just receives a minimal. All intellectual products are confiscated by the minority. The majority have no right to have a secure job and life. Etc.MoK

    ' A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats is weakest members ' - Ghandi or something

    We cannot reach Utopia until there are bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Once these bad genes are removed either by evolution or by us then we have a chance to live in Utopia. I read about Kant's categorical imperatives and I am discussing his first formulation with Corvus right now. My main problem with this formulation is that he suggests that one has to universalize a maxim to see whether the action that the maxim refers to is right or wrong. I am questioning why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. I also have a problem accepting how reaching a problem by universalizing a maxim helps us realize whether an act is right or wrong. Let me give you an example: Consider killing a human is right as a maxim. Now according to Kant, we need to universalize this maxim by this he means that all humans should act according to this maxim to see whether killing humans is right or wrong. Well, of course, there could be no human if everybody attempts to kill another. He then considers this as a problem and then concludes that killing is wrong. This however requires accepting that the existence of humans is objectively right otherwise you cannot conclude that killing humans is wrong.MoK

    I'm likely in less of a position to answer than @Corvus, but if I may, I presume it boils down to the consideration of not how our actions effect ourselves, or the people we care about for that matter, but everybody. Your example exemplifies exactly why killing a human isn't *generally* considered the right thing to do. Under Kant, it is wrong. I'm unsure if you've seen the movie Purge, but this highlights how, on broad scale, the permission of theft, murder, and other heinous acts are detrimental to society and life. And to your last statement, that falls in line with what I was saying earlier, life inherently values life - the acceptance of the axiom that life is inherently valuable is necessary for life to exist, and to continue existing, even though this may not be a conscious acceptance, we imply that we accept it by living, to live and to state that you don't care would be paradoxical. And not only this, it's also a biological imperative, otherwise the life wouldn't evolve and reproduce. From the acceptance of this, the rest follows.
  • MoK
    861
    The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

    Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.
    Corvus
    We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this.

    I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink:Corvus
    Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :)
  • MoK
    861
    Morality as a whole depends on agency and conscious beings, viz., rocks aren't moral or immoral, they're amoral, they just are. The objectivity of morality, however, is contingent on the valuing of life (or wellbeing) - and to reiterate, by 'value' I don't mean conscious intent.KantRemember
    Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life.

    To give an example of X and Y: Iff we value well-being (X), then it is objectively true that suffering is bad (for the well-being of life) (Y)KantRemember
    It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others.

    I think in using the word understanding there are two underlying assertions - we could take understanding (of morality) to mean an understanding that an action in particular is right or wrong - which is what I was referring to with my Amazonian example, or an understanding of morality conceptually.KantRemember
    Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs.

    Right or wrong, should or shouldn't, better or worse, all of these are in having agency - following your feelings and interests is still behaviour predicated in the assumption that whatever you're feeling is either right or wrong.KantRemember
    I agree that feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs play an important role in morality.

    Objectivity doesn't entail the compulsion to act in such a way that aligns with it, or that humans would agree on it.KantRemember
    Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong.

    Over millennia, we agreed, explicitly, or implicitly, that cannibalism is bad for the survival of our species, that slavery is bad, and I'm sure even today nobody agrees that war is good, it just so happens that the teleology behind is what we disagree on, not the act in itself.KantRemember
    Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves.

    What I mean is that sociology and morality/ethics are different subjects. A ethics professional would not be a qualified sociologist and vice versa.KantRemember
    That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality.

    ' A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats is weakest members ' - Ghandi or somethingKantRemember
    Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation.

    I'd like to think most of us would agree that mass selective reproduction and weeding out those deemed to be genetically inferior is highly unethical.KantRemember
    I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise.

    I'm likely in less of a position to answer than Corvus, but if I may, I presume it boils down to the consideration of not how our actions effect ourselves, or the people we care about for that matter, but everybody. Your example exemplifies exactly why killing a human isn't *generally* considered the right thing to do. Under Kant, it is wrong. I'm unsure if you've seen the movie Purge, but this highlights how, on broad scale, the permission of theft, murder, and other heinous acts are detrimental to society and life. And to your last statement, that falls in line with what I was saying earlier, life inherently values life - the acceptance of the axiom that life is inherently valuable is necessary for life to exist, and to continue existing, even though this may not be a conscious acceptance, we imply that we accept it by living, to live and to state that you don't care would be paradoxical. And not only this, it's also a biological imperative, otherwise the life wouldn't evolve and reproduce. From the acceptance of this, the rest follows.KantRemember
    My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example.MoK
    When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

    We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this.MoK
    Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.

    Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :)MoK
    :ok: :cool:
  • KantRemember
    10
    I’ll be busy for the next few hours- if I don’t reply today I’ll aim to get back to you tomorrow!
  • Corvus
    4.1k


    Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself.

    You will still have your own practical reasoning telling you that your moral judgement is wrong, but your feelings and beliefs are saying that your judgement is right. That is a moral conflict within oneself, which can be tricky to resolve. Better to listen to your practical reasoning rather than relying on your feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions on moral judgements.
  • MoK
    861
    When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.Corvus
    I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role.

    Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.Corvus
    Could humans survive and extend to such an extent without having the ability to think? Once, you have an agent with a rational ability, then she/he asks all sorts of questions and tries to rationalize things.
  • MoK
    861

    No problem. I will wait for your reply.
  • MoK
    861
    Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself.Corvus
    No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent.MoK

    Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. By definition those concepts imply groundlessness, unfoundedness, falsity, prejudice, misunderstanding, and irrationality in their nature and origin.

    Isn't it reason that you have to listen and follow in order to be a free agent?
  • KantRemember
    10

    Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life.MoK
    I agree but this doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent. The value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on.

    It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others.MoK

    Under the framework of valuing life, suffering is not subjectively bad, it impedes the wellbeing of life which, if we value life, is bad. What's subjective is the justification behind it, whether the teleology justifies the action.
    I'd agree that "the suffering of X" is subjectively justifiable, but not that suffering in and of itself is good.

    Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs.MoK

    This is a tricky one. At a certain level, everything is due to, or at least involves, our interests, opinions, and beliefs etc., so it'd be meaningless to make morality reducible as such. As I said before, the objectivity of morality has no propelling factor that makes us act in such a way - it's not like the law of gravity, it's just that some actions we partake in do coincide with what's moral, and other actions do not.


    Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong.MoK

    Not true. Disagreement on any act, X, is independent from whether X is objective or subjective. What's subjective is the belief about the nature of X, not the nature of X itself. i.e., I could believe the earth is flat, and you could believe the earth is round. This doesn't make whether or not the earth is round or not subjective concern. The earth will still objectively be round whether I believed it to be or not.

    Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves.MoK

    True, actually. We disagree on whether the act is right or wrong in themselves AND whether the justification behind the act is right or wrong.

    Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation.MoK

    Marx'd love you.

    That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality.MoK
    I don't think this isn't the case, because its impossible to separate feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions when it comes to agency and decision making, but this doesn't impede the objectivity of morals.

    I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise.MoK

    I mean isn't that what evolution is for? The natural order of life is to ensure that the best fitted survive, the ethical difference is that nature isn't a moral, rational agent. Morality doesn't apply to it.

    My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable.MoK

    Your second sentence is the logical succession of the first. You state that you wouldn't kill a human being if life is valuable and Kant's imperatives state that if life is valuable we shouldn't kill human beings. You're already in agreement. His formulation doesn't just apply to killing, but moral actions as a whole - it's something that provides framework and consensus - granted, you're not compelled to accept it and it doesn't solve all moral qualms but something is better than nothing I suppose.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role.MoK

    All my moral judgements have been based on practical reasoning. There is no single case that I have made moral judgements based on my feelings, beliefs, opinions or interests. Because these psychological states and events are not reliable basis for the judgements on moral right or wrong.

    In order to make my moral judgements, I would need all the details about the case, decisions, causes, the people involved and possible relation to maxims, universal law and the society the agents were living in as well as the moral code within the society.

    With all the factors involved available in hand, there will be hard thinking and reasoning for the moral judgement on the case. Without the full factual knowledge and evidence on the case, no moral judgement would be possible at all. It is like a scientific conclusion that without relevant data for the possible new theory, there would be no conclusion.

    Depending on the nature of the case, there might be personal feelings and beliefs that could creep up into mind at times, however practical reasoning will resolutely kick them out as not necessary and irrelevant factors for the judgement. Practical reasoning is the faculty of mind, which rules moral judgements, be it right or wrong.
  • MoK
    861
    Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom.Corvus
    These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread.MoK

    Yeah, they could. But they feed with the irrational and illusional side of situations. They creep up even when you are trying to reason on the facts and analytic knowledge. They tend to cloud your judgements and reasoning, and force you to make wrong judgements for the situations.

    You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions.
  • Corvus
    4.1k


    Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.
  • MoK
    861
    I agree. This doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent.KantRemember
    It makes the value of life subjective as well, by subjective, I mean that people have different opinions or feelings on the value of life. A person who is highly depressed feels that life is very awful. Life not only has no value for him, but it also is like a trap that he wants to get rid of by committing suicide, for example. The same person feels differently about life when the depression is gone.

    The life value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on.KantRemember
    Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it.

    Under the framework of valuing life, suffering is not subjectively bad, it impedes the wellbeing of life which, if we value life, is bad. What's subjective is the justification behind it, whether the teleology justifies the action.
    I'd agree that "the suffering of X" is subjectively justifiable, but not that suffering in and of itself is good.
    KantRemember
    If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective.

    Not true. Disagreement on any act, X, is independent from whether X is objective or subjective. What's subjective is the belief about the nature of X, not the nature of X itself.KantRemember
    I think the source of our disagreement is that we disagree on what we mean by objective and subjective. Do you mind providing your definition of them? I define morality as subjective if it is based on feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs. Morality is objective if it is on pure reason.

    True, actually. We disagree on whether the act is right or wrong in themselves AND whether the justification behind the act is right or wrong.KantRemember
    Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective.

    Marx'd love you.KantRemember
    I love him as well.

    I mean isn't that what evolution is for? The natural order of life is to ensure that the best fitted survive, the ethical difference is that nature isn't a moral, rational agent. Morality doesn't apply to it.KantRemember
    Correct, evolution does its job but we can expedite the process of reaching Utopia as well. We are rational agents. We know what we need and what we don't need.

    Your second sentence is the logical succession of the first.KantRemember
    No, my point is that according to Kant's first formulation, we can only conclude that killing is wrong if we accept that life is valuable. According to this formulation, one has to universalize a maxim, killing a human is right, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. He then argues life is not possible if we universalize this maxim. He then concludes that killing a human is objectively wrong. There are two issues here: 1) Why should we universalize a maxim to realize that the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong, and 2) How could we conclude that killing a human is wrong from the fact that life is not possible if we universalize the maxim? This conclusion however only follows if life has a value.

    You state that you wouldn't kill a human being if life is valuable and Kant's imperatives state that if life is valuable we shouldn't kill human beings.KantRemember
    No, my point is that he tries to give a general formulation that killing a human is objectively wrong. I think that killing a human is permissible, given the circumstances, so no, I don't think that killing a human is objectively wrong. To me, life, to be clear, is generally valuable, but there are cases in life where living just involves suffering. Think of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc. To me, killing these individuals is right if they want to terminate their lives. Following Kant, we are not allowed to kill any of these individuals, which to me is cruel.

    His formulation doesn't just apply to killing, but moral actions as a whole - it's something that provides framework and consensus - granted, you're not compelled to accept it and it doesn't solve all moral qualms but something is better than nothing I suppose.KantRemember
    But he and his followers think that his formulation provides a reason for objective morality. That is something that I disagree with for the given reasons.
  • MoK
    861
    You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions.Corvus
    My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide.
  • MoK
    861
    However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.Corvus
    My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems. Think of a terrorist who put a bomb in a location that we are not aware of. The only way to know where the bomb is is through torturing the terrorist. According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? Wouldn't you torture him to find the bomb and save the lives of many? I would, and my decision in these circumstances is based on mere opinion, saving the lives of many worth torturing the terrorist.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide.MoK

    You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    My point is that pure reason can resolve moral problems but adds problems.MoK

    This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully.

    You see how feelings and beliefs could make rash judgements and decisions, and just resort to the barbaric ways to resolve the problem? Use your practical reasoning wisely, and the world problem could be resolved amicably for win win results.
  • Pantagruel
    3.5k
    Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.Corvus

    Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices.Pantagruel

    Belief without reason can be groundless and unfounded. Beliefs must go through verification of reason to be fit for judgement and decision. They say justified beliefs via reasoning are knowledge. Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation?MoK

    Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out?

    The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. Then what is the point of torturing? It wouldn't have been the method fit for the purpose for saving any life. Hence it would have been an act of blind and pointless end, which would be an evident moral wrongness itself.
  • Pantagruel
    3.5k
    Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading.Corvus

    I believe that it is right to treat people with empathy. That is neither blind, nor misleading. Reason is not the one single governing faculty. Nothing about human psychology even vaguely supports the hypothesis that it is. Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human. Which is why belief is its own thing, and human behaviour an amalgam of emotion, reason and...belief.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human.Pantagruel

    If someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim?
  • Pantagruel
    3.5k
    f someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim?Corvus

    If you are talking about constructing a rational (qua logically and/or semantically sound) argument or claim then I guess you would say something like, I believe that people who insult me are evil. You insulted me, therefore you are evil. And that is the whole point, isn't it? There is no universal standard of rationality. Rationality is what emerges in and through discourse. And what makes a claim rational is, by definition, beyond mere rationality. Theories of communicative action would align with this perspective.

    To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates.Pantagruel

    We are not denying the workings of beliefs and feelings and emotion in mental events. However, these mental states are largely caused by the other mental states within the self such as self imagery, self reflections and one's past experiences rather than the facts and evidence from the real world events.

    Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.

    Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.

    Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs.
  • Pantagruel
    3.5k
    Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.

    Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.

    Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs.
    Corvus

    This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm.Pantagruel

    You seem to have misunderstood my point there. I have not said much about reason, ought or can. I just said, moral judgements must be based on reason.

    Most of what I said was about feelings, beliefs and emotions, and how they cannot be the foundation of moral judgements.
  • Pantagruel
    3.5k
    just said, moral judgements must be based on reason.Corvus

    Yes, I know. And as I pointed out, moral judgements, insofar as they may influence actions, which is their entire purpose, cannot be reasonably thought to be solely a function of reason.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.