If morality came from the individual, there would be no need for socialization.
There is a need for socialization.
Thus, morality doesn’t come from the individual. — Noah Te Stroete
Who gives a fuck? The topic is morality. Say something relevant to the topic. — S
The first premise is obviously false, so the argument is unsound. This is child's play. — S
Why is it false? — Noah Te Stroete
You begin with premises about society as if it is taken for granted that morality is all about society, which you know that I reject from the get go. — S
It seems we are at an impasse. I believe my premises are true. You don’t. Oh well. — Noah Te Stroete
Society has the goal of survival and flourishing of the community.
In order for this survival and flourishing, moral laws must be formed.
Moral laws are also grounded in moral feeling.
That moral feeling has as its basis the avoidance of pain.
Moral laws dissuade the inflicting of pain, which also helps to ensure the survival and flourishing of society.
If moral laws didn’t exist, then society would not have lasted this long.
Society has lasted.
Hence, MORAL LAWS EXIST. — Noah Te Stroete
Only if you think that they're brute facts. Do you? Otherwise the burden is on you and you should stop making excuses. — S
I don’t know how to prove to you that we are social creatures sharing linguistic meaning other than... — Noah Te Stroete
I have narrowed down the problem to your first premise. Either try to defend it or do not. The burden is with you, — S
As I said, morality is taught just as any other linguistic knowledge. Socialization teaches the shared moral norms of a society. Any other function of socialization is secondary to and meaningless without the teaching of morals. — Noah Te Stroete
I don't care. You haven't given me any reason to. You're getting way ahead of yourself. My advice would be to slow down, try to regain relevance in relation to something I've actually said, and make explicit any key differences in interpretation. Otherwise this is going to be very unproductive, like my example in "Horses Are Cats". — S
I don’t know what else I can say. I thought I laid it out before you. — Noah Te Stroete
Just being honest and nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. I wouldn’t blame others for saving humanity in this way, although it would still be an evil act. I just don’t have the stomach to harm a baby. — Noah Te Stroete
For example, there was only one war with a Hitler. Most of the rest are nothing but moral ambiguities. — ZhouBoTong
How can one subjective moral view be better than any other subjective moral view - if the basis for both is purely the subjective view of the person who holds it? Any judgment on either view that does not employ some degree of objective morality as a standard to measure against is just one more subjective view.
If all moral views are subjective, by definition none can be objectively better than any other. — Rank Amateur
If I assume my sense, then there's a giant logical gap between that as the antecedent, and no possible socialisation as the consequent, in the conditional of your very first premise. — S
Through shared meaning, communication, socialization. — Noah Te Stroete
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts from the original point in question, — Baden
is constitutive of what's moral because it reflects commmonalities in the human condition unbeholden to the local, i.e. it's an appeal to the broadest level of intersubjectivity. — Baden
by playing with the word 'prevalent' and turning it into 'popular', — Baden
and that can't be effectively challenged by claiming we're only appealing to what people popularly believe concerning the feeling of pain — Baden
Pain in itself, its nature, its prevalence, and its effects, not popular notions concerning it, is what's morally salient here — Baden
Pain in itself, its nature, its prevalence, and its effects, not popular notions concerning it, is what's morally salient here — Baden
you recognize pain and harm as salient, but only when it's inflicted physically, — Baden
immunize yourself against any possibility of a rational challenge — Baden
Now that sequence of silliness is worthy of a lol. — Baden
In short, you have zero of sense to offer on the subject and when that's pointed out you retreat into the usual nonsense, 'it's just an opinion' etc. — Baden
Some sort of language expert you are when you're not even familiar with ""frequently encountered or widely accepted" as a definition of "popular." — Terrapin Station
For example, that pain is generally felt as a bad thing is evidential of the general truth of the moral precept 'We ought not to inflict unnecessary pain', and that can't be effectively challenged by claiming we're only appealing to what people popularly believe* concerning the feeling of pain (as if there was some kind of free choice involved). No. Pain in itself, its nature, its prevalence, and its effects, not popular notions concerning it, is what's morally salient here and moving away from that is misleading. At the very best, inapt. Which was the specific charge made, and that I'm supporting. — Baden
But you saying that pain is "popular" because it is "frequently encountered" will rightly result in people laughing in your face, — Baden
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.