The Greek answer to the question was to say that each thing has a function, and "good" merely means fulfilling this function. — Garth

That's fine for things that have one function. But a related question to "how ought I to behave?" is "what is the purpose of my existence?"

This is why, for me, morality is an existential matter. We are far from a situation in which we have well-defined functions, or where any given function "ought" to be adopted over another. We have a lot of freedom, which burdens us with a lot of decisions to make.

This forum has rules that are necessary to its being a place of discussion and not full of thoughtless rubbish. If you think they are based on false beliefs, try a site where they do not have them and compare. — unenlightened

The difference between this forum and life or society is that we choose to come here and accept the rules. We are imposing the rules on ourselves to achieve the aims we want.

This forum could have a different set of rules and no moderation. There are a variety of forums that allow people to express themselves in different ways.

This reminds of the Trump Twitter ban. Banning him earlier would have probably been more beneficial to everyone but for reasons only they can know they allowed a lot of prior inflammatory behaviour.

I don't think anyone is entitled to go on twitter or on this forum it is a negotiation and a fluctuation of values and attitudes.

I think the apparent need for rules is an interesting point. Needing structure and rules does not mean these rules are not invented and without genuine force.

The fact that views on here can be and are challenged means the forum is already accepting that no persons opinions are absolute and unquestionable.

This entry distinguishes between Linguistic and Ontological fictionalism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/

I would class myself as a linguistic fictionalist. I would not make the ontological claim that all abstract claims, concepts and beliefs are fictional.

I am skeptical about the basis of certain claims but agnostic about how much of discourse reflects the nature of reality.

So for instance I think moral claims need a realm of authority beyond anything we have at the moment from religion or science. I suppose moral claims have to exist in a non natural realm because nature is brutal and amoral. So I think nature does not provide moral ought's.

I think a lot of claims have been propped up by God in the past (Children obey your parents). That is mentioned in the Stanford article in reference to Voltaire saying “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”

The Greek answer to the question was to say that each thing has a function, and "good" merely means fulfilling this function. — Garth

Apparently evolution has undermined function talk and teleology.

In evolutionary theory it is easy to explain behaviour as simply roundabout ways to encourage people to be fit and spread their genes.

If this evolutionary model is correct it would probably entail that whatever justification we give for our actions they are just serving the mindless survival of genes.

That's fine for things that have one function. But a related question to "how ought I to behave?" is "what is the purpose of my existence?" — Kenosha Kid

Well I've been working on an essay about this, but generally the answer to the question is "Ethics".

I think the apparent need for rules is an interesting point. Needing structure and rules does not mean these rules are not invented and without genuine force. — Andrew4Handel

Try driving on the wrong side of the road and feel the genuine force.The idea that social pressure is unreal is as ridiculous as that it is unnecessary. A path is made by walking on it, something that sheep manage with no detectable entitlement. Habit and custom arise and establish themselves naturally, and entitlement is established in this way too; it is not a precondition of social organisation, nor is it anyone's invention. So far, I can see no radical distinction between the way a river course is established by a process of erosion, and the way a society is established and becomes regulated. Sometimes rivers flood and change course, and sometimes societies suffer revolutions. River courses are not fictional.

I think the apparent need for rules is an interesting point. Needing structure and rules does not mean these rules are not invented and without genuine force.
— Andrew4Handel

Try driving on the wrong side of the road and feel the genuine force.The idea that social pressure is unreal is as ridiculous as that it is unnecessary. A path is made by walking on it, something that sheep manage with no detectable entitlement. Habit and custom arise and establish themselves naturally, and entitlement is established in this way too; it is not a precondition of social organisation, nor is it anyone's invention. So far, I can see no radical distinction between the way a river course is established by a process of erosion, and the way a society is established and becomes regulated. Sometimes rivers flood and change course, and sometimes societies suffer revolutions. River courses are not fictional. — unenlightened

Good analogy!

It's interesting that a good analogy or metaphor can be more insightful, than trying to capture it in abstract categories like subjective/objective, absolute/relative, real/fictional etc etc... Good stuff.

Try driving on the wrong side of the road and feel the genuine force. — unenlightened

I think you are conflating rules that people chose to obey as opposed to rules people feel obliged to obey.

I don't agree that rule like road laws are inevitable especially since cars are very modern historical development.

The invention of the motorcar made some kind of pragmatic road regulations inevitable. In this sense social structures are going to emerge once people develop a society but not because they are justified.

To make a crude analogy say someone invented a robot that came out at 7 at night and started killing people. In this scenario it would be advisable not to leave your house at 7 pm. That rule has only come about by an absurd decision to make a killer robot.

But anyhow I am not referring to pragmatic rules we chose to follow out of self interest but linguistic statements such as "You ought pay taxes" "Theft is wrong" "I own this house" "This is my country".

This is about foundational premises before your start creating your society.

I think conflicts like the Israeli/Palestinian one are going to be difficult to resolve because of the problematic status of claims concerning countries and ownership.

When a country or area like that region has not had autonomy(The crusades/Ottoman empire etc) and been the centre of disputes it has not inherited a stable identity.

Other countries have had wars over the centuries to establish their boundaries and now we take those boundaries for granted. Now major countries have large armies and even nuclear weapons to enforce boundary and nation status claims.

The whole panalopy of laws and military assets is the elaborate machinery of enforcement of social/national claims to force compliance to the tests doctrines or beliefs.

But anyhow I am not referring to pragmatic rules we chose to follow out of self interest but linguistic statements such as "You ought pay taxes" "Theft is wrong" "I own this house" "This is my country".

This is about foundational premises before your start creating your society. — Andrew4Handel

I really don't understand how these are foundational or prior to a society? The notion of property and hence theft and tax developed out of agrarian societies. They make little sense to hunter/gatherer societies.

But let me make another suggestion; that morality is founded on biology and environment. Large brain mandates early birth and under developed helpless neonates. The complex social relations of a tribe require that large brain to learn the particular adaptations of behaviour and social structure developed historically to exploit the local environment. This automatically produces a web of dependencies such that children need to learn food sources and environmental challenges, as well as the social expectations that will allow them to survive. Hunters need to cooperate, shelters need to be built cooperatively, and so on.

The morality of intelligent turtles, that lay eggs on the beach and leave them to hatch and survive or not on their own, would be very different. Welfare services would not include child welfare.

Good stuff. — ChatteringMonkey

Agreed.

I really don't understand how these are foundational or prior to a society? — unenlightened

Those two statements weren't supposed to be paired.

The first point I was making that statements like "I own this house" are fictional or "Child abuse is wrong" are fictional. There is not a metaphysical or ontological reality behind these claims. But they may be pragmatically useful.

The other point of about" foundations" I referenced in relation to the Israel/Arab conflict. There is not an agreement about who deserves to live on the land. They haven't developed a legitimacy basis to found a stable society on so they are in perpetual conflict.

It is not a smooth transition to adapt to new circumstances but an ongoing conflict. If there were objective facts about what made a just/valid society there would have been no need for these conflicts.

However the fictionalist claim is that certain things we talk about are fictions not about whether they can be effective or pragmatically useful or not. Religion has been an effective social force despite that I think it is none of it true.

On the issue of enforceability. In the UK where I live the majority of crimes go unsolved.

That is a classic example of how the laws don't enforce themselves and can have no consequences as opposed to the example of driving on the wrong side of the road.