Allow me to explain the problem. What do you think conflicting statements are? I think that you think of the following, for example:

"Abortion is morally permissible" and "Abortion is morally impermissible".

They can't both be true, by the law of noncontradiction. You assert that with statements of this sort, one is true and the other is false, and your argument for this is... you don't have one.

That is very much a problem.

My position begins with a recognition of the problem. It then resolves it through moral relativism, as follows:

In an ethical difference over abortion, interpret, "Abortion is morally permissible", as "In my judgement, abortion is morally permissible", and interpret, "Abortion is morally impermissible", as "In my judgement, abortion is morally impermissible".

Given that in the each statement above, "In my judgement", refers to a different thing, namely, in one case, the judgement of one person, and in the other case, the judgement of the other person, there is no contradiction. Both statements, assuming sincerity, are true. Meta-ethical problem resolved.

You always seem to have trouble with this, because either a) you don't present a supporting argument for your dogmatic moral absolutism, or b) you misrepresent moral relativism, or c) you misrepresent the law of noncontradiction, or d) a combination of the aforementioned.

We must have been over this a million times, but you've proven incapable of getting it. I think that I'm very good at explaining things like this, even if I do say so myself. I don't think that it's my explaining that's the problem. I mean, just compare the above post with mine. It should be clear to others which of the two of us is the better writer, clearer thinker, less of a crackpot...

I would never come out with something like "Pure reason is thinking about thought/belief". I would be far to embarrassed to say something like that in all seriousness. Seriously, stop trying so hard to be original. You're never going to be a famous philosopher. You are no where near being in the same league as the likes of Hume and Kant. None of us are, but least of all you. They aren't "utter failures", you are. That is very much an example of psychological projection. Please. Stop. For your own good. It's embarrassing. Just google "pure reason", and learn.

Where you wrote "interpret as..."

I wonder. This is too funny. What would a misinterpretation look like? What about all the different people and positions that acknowledge the fact that the majority of people, when saying "X is immoral" mean that X is immoral.

Under your position... everybody holds that being moral/immoral is just a matter of being about personal judgment, or we misattribute meaning to everyone who doesn't think like that.

Everyone does not think like that.

The position you're arguing for/from is utterly inadequate for taking account of the way things actually are.

I am not trying to interpret the statements in accordance with moral objectivism, even under the assumption that that's what most people mean. I am trying to resolve a philosophical problem. Interpreting the statements in accordance with moral objectivism is the cause of the problem, in my assessment. If you think that you can resolve the problem which results from that interpretation, then go ahead. Present a reasonable argument. What do you think we've been waiting for? But you don't present a reasonable argument. Ever. Not once in 58 pages. So you're about a million light-years behind me. You are stuck on a problem that I've resolved.

Your answer: dogmatism. The problem? Dogmatism leads to all kinds of unfounded nonsense.

The subjective/objective dichotomy is utterly inadequate for taking account of thought/belief... moral thought/belief notwithstanding.

Misattributing meaning to statements of thought/belief does not resolve the problem.

Identify the problem...

Any arguable problem with what I present as a possible resolution involving interpretation is vastly overshadowed by your problem which results from an interpretation in accordance with moral objectivism, which is the far bigger problem of dogmatism, which is contrary to philosophy. I urge you to take a look at what this forum is named. Are you sure you're in the right place?

Identify the problem... — creativesoul

I have done so already. You want me to highlight it for you? Okay, but don't take the piss. My patience is limited.

Allow me to explain the problem. What do you think conflicting statements are? I think that you think of the following, for example:

"Abortion is morally permissible" and "Abortion is morally impermissible".

They can't both be true, by the law of noncontradiction. You assert that with statements of this sort, one is true and the other is false, and your argument for this is... you don't have one.

That is very much a problem. — S

That's big problem number one.

Your answer: dogmatism. The problem? Dogmatism leads to all kinds of unfounded nonsense. — S

That's big problem number two.

I would only like to suggest that the reader actually compare what Sapientia claims about my thought/belief - in his report of my worldview - with anything and everything that I've actually claimed here and/or elsewhere, which is a much more reliable representation thereof. The two(his report of that which existed prior to his report, and that which he is reporting upon(that which existed prior to his report) do not correspond to one another. What he overtly claims and covertly implies about my words is chock full of falsehood.

His is wrong about my position in the exact same way that Western Philosophy has been wrong about what thought/belief consists of and/or how it all works. Being wrong about that which existed prior to our reports comes in a variety of ways.

Common use of language qualifies. Drawing mental correlations between different things qualifies.

My avatar's namesake hasn't changed except for the "soul" part. It's been lost and found a couple of times.

The only means of becoming aware of one's own mistake is by virtue of an other... I welcome valid criticism.

We're still waiting. And if we stick around, we'll still just be waiting and waiting and waiting...

It has become clear that your psychological mechanisms have now taken over. Anything to escape having to actually deal with the problem rationally, right? Go ahead, blame your incompetence on me. It is my fault that you're too incompetent to deal with the problem I raised. It is my fault that you don't want to admit your shortcomings to such an extent that your own unconscious psychological mechanisms have kicked in to protect your fragile ego.

You always seem to have trouble with this, because either a) you don't present a supporting argument for your dogmatic moral absolutism, or b) you misrepresent moral relativism, or c) you misrepresent the law of noncontradiction, or d) a combination of the aforementioned. — S

Damn, I'm good.

A sure sign that there is not a lick of substance to the position one is arguing for is the ad hom...

Be helpful.

...

Be helpful. — creativesoul

Ha! More than I already have been?!? Good god, man. Learn to help yourself.

I would only like to suggest that the reader actually compare what Sapientia claims about my thought/belief - in his report of my worldview - with anything and everything that I've actually claimed here and/or elsewhere, which is a much more reliable representation thereof. The two(his report of that which existed prior to his report, and that which he is reporting upon(that which existed prior to his report) do not correspond to one another. What he overtly claims and covertly implies about my words is chock full of falsehood. — creativesoul

Jesus H Christ. You are really bad at writing. Just say that I misrepresented you.

His is wrong about my position in the exact same way that Western Philosophy has been wrong about what thought/belief consists of and/or how it all works. — creativesoul

Crackpot alert!

One last chance...

There are probably upwards of five or ten or arguments I've given in this thread about various aspects of morality. I would be interested in having you copy at least one in it's entirety and then offer valid criticism of it.

The astute reader already knows that I've already satisfied that criterion. I've just completed doing so on this and the previous pages. I've levied clear concise and well-reasoned criticism based upon obvious true statements.

You've offered nothing more than grandstanding, gratuitous assertion, double standards, equivocation of terms, red herrings and non-sequiturs, the list goes on and on. This report of actual events that I'm asserting is true, because these things happened. Anyone can go look for themselves.

Your personal tirades against the author as compared/contrasted to being about the statements is not only automatic loss in formal rational and ethical rules of debate, but it is quite indicative of the 'larger' problem of ill-founded blatant disgust and/or obtuse disrespect for another person...

Edit in light of the latest response...

What a shame. You had so much potential.

And you're here to convince others that you have the best notion of morality?

:worry:

... and I'm being called "a crackpot".

Sigh....

Be well Sapientia.

@Terrapin Station, @Janus, @Isaac, @DingoJones, @ChrisH, @Edward

Any of you know what "argument" @creativesoul is referring to? No, me neither. It's alright, I'll just go on a wild goose chase through 60 pages of discussion.

And you're here to convince others that you have the best notion of morality?

:worry:

... and I'm being called "a crackpot".

Sigh....

Be well Sapientia. — creativesoul

A little off topic, but yes! If I was a crackpot, I would most certainly want people to do more or less whatever it takes to breakthrough to me that I am a crackpot, even if it shattered my false self-image. The first step is identifying the problem.

Your making yourself look bad.

Your making yourself look bad. — creativesoul

By being principled enough to tell it like it is?

Always a nod to honesty. It takes more than that to be a decent human being.

Always a nod to honesty. It takes more than that to be a decent human being. — creativesoul

You're a crackpot, but I love you? Let's hug it out? Am I a decent human being if I tell you comforting things you want to hear, in addition to the harsh truth? Or do you think it's better just to flat out lie? You're not a crackpot, you're a genius who has got it all figured out, unlike the entirety of Western philosophy? Oh, and you're really good at writing? Keep up the good work?

You're holding a number of false belief and I've given up on showing you. My personal self-worth is not influenced by your thought/belief about me. Your behaviour here is unacceptable, shameworthy. No wonder you seek to justify(rationalize) your own personal moral thought/belief by virtue of misinterpretation that makes all morality seem to be based upon the same rubbish. It's not.

Seriously. Be well.

You're holding a number of false belief and I've given up on showing you. — creativesoul

Woh. Wait. You just said "belief". On its own. You didn't do the annoying forward slash thing. That's a sign of progress.

Seriously. Be well. — creativesoul

You too. I hope you deal with your issues. Be brave enough to face the harsh reality. The world won't come to an end if you do.

Define the term "truth" in such a way that the reader could replace all your uses of it with it's definition and not suffer any loss of meaning and/or coherency.
— creativesoul

Nahhh....I ain’t doin’ that. — Mww

Do you not worry about equivocating and/or self-contradiction? Given the context, it seems to me that what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so matters...

Statements of thought/belief can be true. Can moral statements be true? If so, they ought be so by virtue of the same way that other statements are. Correspondence to what has happened.

The interesting aspects come out when one sets out exactly what they mean by the name("moral statement"). Clearly, it is a kind of statement. What makes it qualify for being of the moral variety?

The coherency of everything else claimed about moral thought/belief hinges upon this. No?

Is it helpful to parse morality in such terms? "Moral" not being a synonym for right, acceptable, and/or approval, but rather as a kind of thought/belief that everyone has; a kind that is determined the same way that all kinds of thought/belief are determined... by the content of their correlations.

I'm quite unconvinced here.

No, I've no idea which of his bare assertions he's erroneously describing as an argument.

I've had enough of this nonsense. I'm not wasting any more time writing stuff that just gets ignored, I might as well talk to a wall.

I asked you, "Could you give an example and explain how we'd be mistaken? . . . "

Your response to that is "You've already admitted to having made that mistake." ????

And then you said to use my own example.

I suggested an example and asked you to explain how it would be mistaken rather than just being a different, far more unusual, moral stance that someone could have. How am I supposed to use that example? I have no idea how you'd believe it works that the person is supposed to be mistaken.

Any of you know what "argument" creativesoul is referring to? — S

I'd say they were more his explanations or accounting of what's going on with morality than something like an argument with premises and a conclusion. I could find some examples of that, but it would take a bit because there are so many posts in this thread.

His explanations have been met with many objections that he hasn't really addressed.

Cognitive dissonance rears it's ugly head again... — creativesoul

It always does, when opinions are the primary source in a dialectic.

If there are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism, then it fails miserably — creativesoul

No conflicting statements implies subjective infallibility, but otherwise normal humans are very far from infallible if it be granted it is impossible to have sufficient evidence to prevent being wrong universally, such that an agent’s statements and the world of his involvement immediately coincide regardless of circumstance. It follows that “fails miserably”, while perhaps being a rather harsh judgement, isn’t entirely misplaced.

On the other hand, in a broader sense, involving groups of subjects, there can be private statements among individuals which may not conflict internally but conflict inter-subjectively. This broader aspect entails a failure in the culture in which the SMR is operative, but not so much the individual. Either way, the implication is that subjective moral progress is very difficult and any rational criticism of his own or any other social climate is virtually non-existent.

All of which seems to indicate a problem with “conflicting statements” with regard to what is in conflict with what. Such problem with statements reduces to a problem with relativism, in which case the question becomes, what is it actually that is relative, and what is it relative to.

Where is the boundary on this side of which is right and wrong and the good; and on the other it's all relative? I think that depends on the good in question, and the age, maturity, experience, and circumstance of those asking. — tim wood

I would have left out right and wrong, but otherwise, well said. The sense of “good” already contains right or wrong in it for the moral agent, and on the other side, the observing agent has no say in the moral agent’s determinations but may only make his own judgements relative to them.

I shouldn't respond to something else because I want you to address "Let me ask you this. Would you say that what's suitable or not to a community hinges on what people desire with respect to the community?"

But re the other most recent comments to me, you're conflating things that I'm making pains to not conflate.

A precondition for x isn't identical to x. (Or x being the result of y doesn't imply that y is identical to x.)

So it's a precondition for me to awaken that I fall asleep or that I'm unconscious first. But falling asleep or being unconscious aren't identical to awakening.

It's a precondition for me to drive somewhere that I have access to a vehicle. But having access to a vehicle isn't identical to driving somewhere.

Also, me driving somewhere might be the result of someone asking or commanding me to drive somewhere, but someone asking or commanding me to drive somewhere isn't identical to me driving somewhere.

When I say that moral stances are mental phenomena, and only individuals have mental phenomena, I'm not saying that there aren't preconditions for having mental phenomena or moral stances, I'm not saying that the preconditions are (of) individuals qua individuals. But those preconditions aren't identical to mental phenomena or moral stances. (And likewise with ice states and the environmental, chemical, etc. preconditions of the same.)