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

:lol:

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. — Isaac

I know the feeling. :meh:

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

Him and Ranky are extremely hard to pin down. It's like they have an automatic shutdown when things get too tough.

No conflicting statements implies subjective infallibility...

Not really, because of the relativism. One can of course be wrong in the relative sense. In practice, it most certainly doesn't work as though we're infallible, so whatever's going on behind the scenes doesn't make a big difference in that sense. We can change our ethical views, and ethics is about competing moralities. There's no practical difference, from my perspective, between others being wrong relative to my morality, and others simply being wrong. It works that way for you and for everyone else, also.

All of which seems to indicate a problem with “conflicting statements” with regard to what is in conflict with what.

Nope, no problem. And there's a conflict between moralities. I would rather he conform with mine, he would rather I conform with his.

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.

There's no problem, and that question has been answered.

Do you not worry about equivocating and/or self-contradiction? — creativesoul

No. I’m sure of what I think. I know I’m not self-contradictory, but I certainly could be just plain wrong because I’m missing some experience which would alter my judgements. That being said, I’m as much subject to possible cognitive prejudice as the next guy. But if so, I came by it honestly, so I’m ok with it.
——————

Correspondence to what has happened. — creativesoul

I said I wasn’t going to define “truth”. That’s not to say I don’t accord with with a similar form of yours, insofar as...a-HEM!!!!.....truth is given when a cognition conforms to its object. While not a definition per se, it is an indication of a purely subjective condition which abides no internal controversy.
—————-

Can moral statements be true? — creativesoul

What’s a moral statement? From the agent’s perspective, is it a declaration of an interest (hunger is detrimental to good health), or, is it the representation of an interest in the form of an action (I go to the gospel mission every Tuesday to feed the hungry)? I don’t make linguistic moral statements when the occassion arises to formulate my morality (I can see it in my head) so the truth of that kind of statement is moot. If my action is considered a moral statement, and it derives explicitly from my moral law, then it is a true representation of a moral interest but not a linguistic statement. If I just outright tell you something I consider implicit in my moral agency, then that statement I make to you must be a statement about a true moral interest of mine. But you wouldn’t know if I actually held the moral principle from which the interest came anyway, so, again, the truth of that statement is moot.

Truth or non-truth is not sufficient for moral statements, but only for actions in compliance with a subjective principle. Only then is an agent is morally true to himself.
———————-

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. — creativesoul

Since this whole Chinese fire drill started, it has been my position that morality is one of two intrinsic conditions of being human, the other being rationality (I said reason, but that isn’t quite right). So, no, I do not consider it helpful at all to parse morality in terms of right or wrong, true or false. These are all subject to definite quantification, hence those dualities are reducible to something else, which is the foundation of relativism in general.

I think we need the term “right”, of a certain sense not negated by “wrong” but having to do with “harmonious”, in which relativism has no say, and we also need something irreducible to anything else but still relative in itself. We end up with.......doing the right thing because it is good to do it. Here, what is right is given by the rules the agent himself determines and has no relativism, what is good is relative to the separate agents’ sense of moral obligation with respect to each other.

Can moral statements be true? — creativesoul


What’s a moral statement? — Mww

So, the idea is simply this. Normally, we say that something like "Man first landed on the Moon in 1969" can be true or false. Can "One should not murder" likewise be true or false in some way?

Superficially, man landing on the moon is empirically provable, carrying the implication of necessary truth in the statement. To say one should not murder is not the same kind of statement, insofar as no empirical proof arises from the commission of the act. Committing a murder doesn’t prove it true you shouldn’t have, but only proves it necessarily true that you did. And the negation is the same: not committing the murder proves you didn’t but doesn’t prove you shouldn’t.

If I say it is true my best interest is served by not committing murder, then I am tacitly admitting the statement “one should not murder” is true, but that admission is only with respect to my interest, not to the fact of the matter contained in the statement itself. Besides, how would I know with apodeitic certainty the statement is necessarily true without actually doing what the statement says I shouldn’t? Have you ever been aware of some mindset of yours, committed some act associated with that mindset, then been aware of your mindset post-act? Oh man...I should NEVER have done that!!! The difference in those two mindsets perfectly describes the truth of the statement, which manifests purely as a conflict of interest.

So....is there a sense? Sure. But we have no business in formulating our moral interests by having to actually do something beforehand, in order to then discover whether our moral condition is supported by it.

So, the idea is simply this. Normally, we say that something like "Man first landed on the Moon in 1969" can be true or false. Can "One should not murder" likewise be true or false in some way? — Terrapin Station

When you say “true in some way”, don’t you mean “true in the same way” as the moon landing? Something can be true in accordance with the “preferences” one has accepted can’t it, or do you use another word to describe that?
ie someone could say it is true that you should not murder if you do not want to go to jail. Thats not an objective fact statement as your opponents want to claim, but I would say its true, at least in “some” sense.

My answer would be its morally wrong because it causes damage to humanity. A humans fundamental goal is to preserve their life, and to preserve the life of future generations. Thats why suicide is an interesting thing to look at as it goes against all reason.

Morality is relative, but it is relative to what is good for community, not what is good for the individual. There is obviously an objective 'what is the case' when it comes to what is good for community, and this is all the more obvious when it comes to extreme acts — Janus

True, for the morality of the individual is already determined, so what is good for him is given. The differences in already determined moralities of separate individuals, assuming there are any, and the matter and degree of those differences, is where the relativism resides. By association, what is good for the community is determined by the relative moralities of its individual inhabitants and how those differences manifest in public.

The obviously objective “what is the case” of the good of the community is given by how well it performs as a community. It is the case objectively that the community gets along well when the members do, and vice versa.

That which is thought but never expressed is an opinion. That which is opinion expressed is a belief. That belief of which a single instance of its natural occurrence is met in experience, is knowledge. Ever been in a community where some people exhibit moral differences but the community gets along? All righty then......thesis validated far FAR beyond mere opinion.

Thats an interesting question, and I don't quite have an answer, I'll think on that. So essentially the question is "Should morality and law be one, or separate? and at what point should they be separate?"

I didn't come here to debate at all and thats why I chose to use those phrases. I came here to discuss and hear the opinions of others. I use phrases like "I believe" because my ideas of morality are not set in stone by any means and if my ideas of morality can be changed I'm open too it.

The judicial system is an administrative code of conduct, in which rules or laws have a consequence associated with them. It works well to supervise public conduct, but it doesn’t speak to private conduct

Whether law grounds moral dispositions, the why and how of it, is the purview of deontological doctrine. If one doesn’t grant the validity of that doctrine and abide by it, moral dispositions in conjunction with moral law are meaningless.

One would have to find some other way.

Can moral statements be true?
— creativesoul

What’s a moral statement? From the agent’s perspective, is it a declaration of an interest (hunger is detrimental to good health), or, is it the representation of an interest in the form of an action (I go to the gospel mission every Tuesday to feed the hungry)? I don’t make linguistic moral statements when the occassion arises to formulate my morality (I can see it in my head) so the truth of that kind of statement is moot. If my action is considered a moral statement, and it derives explicitly from my moral law, then it is a true representation of a moral interest but not a linguistic statement. If I just outright tell you something I consider implicit in my moral agency, then that statement I make to you must be a statement about a true moral interest of mine. But you wouldn’t know if I actually held the moral principle from which the interest came anyway, so, again, the truth of that statement is moot.

Truth or non-truth is not sufficient for moral statements, but only for actions in compliance with a subjective principle. Only then is an agent is morally true to himself.

That's a good example of a needlessly convoluted answer to a simple question. I say yes, like most of us, and then some of us argue over interpretation. There's only one person I know of here who says no. But seriously, what kind of answer is the above? We all know a moral statement, like "Murder is wrong", when we see one. Are they truth-apt or aren't they? Then, are there some which are true? Then, in what sense?

My answer would be its morally wrong because it causes damage to humanity. A humans fundamental goal is to preserve their life, and to preserve the life of future generations. Thats why suicide is an interesting thing to look at as it goes against all reason. — nsmith

And how do you justify the leap from what seems to be nothing other than a personal judgement, to something more than that? It very much seems to me like one of those statements where you can add something like, "In my view...", or "In my opinion...", or "The way I see it...", and in fact you did this earlier. Yet, if one were to say something like, "In my view, there are 365 days in a year", or "In my opinion, we're in the Milky Way", or, "The way I see it, 2 + 2 = 4", then we'd find that very odd. I think that that's telling.

I didn't come here to debate at all and thats why I chose to use those phrases. I came here to discuss and hear the opinions of others. I use phrases like "I believe" because my ideas of morality are not set in stone by any means and if my ideas of morality can be changed I'm open too it. — nsmith

You don't have to throw yourself into debate, but I think that it's important to keep in mind what's relevant to the topic and what doesn't really need to be said. I was curious about whether you have a view on what we're debating. And whether you take a position or lean more one way than the other. It was hard to tell from your comment. With due respect, I think that some of your statements seemed to miss the mark, a bit like saying something like, "I think that morality is important, and about right and wrong. And I think that murder is wrong", for example. That's not what's at issue here. Is morality relative, absolute, subjective, objective, primarily a matter of emotion, or of reason. Is it, or should it be, individualistic or collective? Those are the sort of things we've been discussing.

True, for the morality of the individual is already determined, so what is good for him is given. The differences in already determined moralities of separate individuals, assuming there are any, and the matter and degree of those differences, is where the relativism resides. By association, what is good for the community is determined by the relative moralities of its individual inhabitants and how those differences manifest in public.

The obviously objective “what is the case” of the good of the community is given by how well it performs as a community. It is the case objectively that the community gets along well when the members do, and vice versa.

That which is thought but never expressed is an opinion. That which is opinion expressed is a belief. That belief of which a single instance of its natural occurrence is met in experience, is knowledge. Ever been in a community where some people exhibit moral differences but the community gets along? All righty then......thesis validated far FAR beyond mere opinion. — Mww

Right, and I think the "differences in already determined moralities of separate individuals" are relatively insignificant when it comes to the central issues of morality, which involve the most obvious forms of harm that members of a community could inflict upon one another.

So, disagreements over issues like abortion, for example, revolve more around the definition of 'person' than over the question of whether it is right or wrong to wantonly harm persons.

I agree with your comment about the good of the community consisting in how well it performs as a community, just as with the human or animal body, where its fitness is equivalent to how good it is.

I also agree that healthy communities can, and probably should, exhibit a range of opinions about the more nuanced moral issues. But again these usually consist in differences of opinion over what constitutes harm.

So, I am a moral relativist in a sense apparently not too different form the sense in which you also seem to be. The frustration I am experiencing in responding to others here who claim to be championing a different kind of moral relativism is that I am not even sure as to exactly what that "difference" consists in, or exactly which points we are disagreeing about.

All they seem to be saying is that it is individuals who make moral choices and hold moral attitudes, but that seems to be trivially obvious, and I can't see how anyone could disagree with that. I would like to see clear statements from them as to what they think I am claiming and how that differs from what they want to claim, otherwise it seems like an endless talk-pastfest, which is a complete waste of time.

I am a moral relativist in a sense apparently not too different form the sense in which you also seem to be. — Janus

I guess I’m a moral relativist in the sense you gave here. I’m pretty sure I have different moral interests than many others hereabouts, and we all get along pretty well.

That being said, I think that notion of morality is reducible to something that, while I get along well here, I wouldn’t get along well at all in, say, Belltown in Seattle, or the South side in Chicago. Or, hell....anywhere in Saigon. Is it something that can be addressed by a shrink, to see if I’m simply a elitist, or would it be better addressed by an examination of my moral philosophy, to see if I live where I do because it is good for me to live here?

I think it means something if I can say my moral interests would change dramatically if I was forced to inhabit a community I didn’t like. If that is true, the influence of culture can explain the occassion of my moral relativism, but it can’t explain the relativism of my moral disposition itself.

endless talk-pastfest, which is a complete waste of time. — Janus

I go by the Lincoln-Douglas style. I take the first negative in opposition to whatever first positive I’m responding. The correct second positive reply to me should address what I said and nothing else whatsoever. If it doesn’t......I’m out. Patience is not my thing. Right before wasted effort.

I think it means something if I can say my moral interests would change dramatically if I was forced to inhabit a community I didn’t like. If that is true, the influence of culture can explain the occassion of my moral relativism, but it can’t explain the relativism of my moral disposition itself. — Mww

Mores can differ markedly between cultures, but I tend to see those more in terms of different forms of etiquette than of central moral differences. I don't know, perhaps we would need to examine actual examples.

The "relativism of (your) moral dispositon itself" I would see as a combination of enculturation and freely exercised rationality. And certainly there will be diversity of opinion over the finer points, which I can only see as a good thing.

The correct second positive reply to me should address what I said and nothing else whatsoever. If it doesn’t......I’m out. — Mww

I think that's the way to go...

I feel as though I have certainly participated in what I see as the useless parts of the overall discussion that comprises this thread; with some degree of frustration and not much sense of the satisfaction that comes with getting at the heart of issues. The only reason I can find for doing so is that I don't like to be misunderstood, and even less do I like being willfully misrepresented. but, there does come a point....

Here's one potential difference you could feed back to me, that is, if you genuinely do want to engage, and are done ignoring me:

You give me the impression of an unwillingness to take things to their full logical conclusions for fear of giving up in some way on those very "central issues" of which you speak. You seem to have a lingering attachment to wanting your moral judgements to somehow impossibly amount to something greater than your moral judgements. Any central issues are central only because we make them so, because we happen to feel a certain way about them. Now, let's say that we take away that feeling. What's left?

Do you think that the most obvious forms of harm that members of a community could inflict upon one another would mean anything, ethically, absent the way we feel about it?

There's an error here which I think that some people fall prey to, which is to try in vein to detach their own subjectivity from that which they subjectively judge. They think it is because harm is wrong that they judge it to be so, without realising that this is in fact backwards. This is just a story that people tell themselves and others. We do not believe that it's just a story because we do not want to believe that it's just a story, just like how we believed in creation myths and our imagined centrality in the universe. But, just as the work of Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and others, is capable of dispelling certain widespread and deeply ingrained myths, the work of Hume can do so also.

The good of the community consists of the good you judge of it, and that he judges of it, and that she judges of it, and that they judge of it, and nothing more.

Is a healthy community a good community? Well, a healthy community is just a healthy community, unless we judge it to be good, in which case we naturally say that it is so. If we were to judge it to be otherwise, then naturally we would say that it is otherwise. There is no litmus test here which can be appealed to. That is the challenge which is never overcome. Has anyone here provided such a test? No. Some have tried, but have failed to realise that it is not a test, but an act of faith. If you place your faith in Kant, He will show you The Way!

I go by the Lincoln-Douglas style. I take the first negative in opposition to whatever first positive I’m responding. The correct second positive reply to me should address what I said and nothing else whatsoever. If it doesn’t......I’m out. Patience is not my thing. Right before wasted effort. — Mww

Indeed, you've made your attitude clear. And I have made my feelings on the matter clear also. This too is a serious ethical disagreement between us. You think that you're above responding to me directly. You think it beneath you. I think that childish and arrogant. I lack the commitment to such pettiness, as you can see. If I see a point I feel like expressing my thoughts on, I generally do so. You have shown yourself to be very much the type to hold grudges to an extent that I struggle to match. I am more tolerant and forgiving in that regard. I have a different set of priorities.

Do you think that the most obvious forms of harm that members of a community could inflict upon one another would mean anything, ethically, absent the way we feel about it? — S

Yes, of course, they would have a detrimental effect on the life of the community. You might say that is because of how everyone feels about it; and of course this is a part of the overall true picture. Everyone dislikes being murdered, raped, stolen from, deceived and so on, and that is an objective fact about human nature.

So I disagree with this:

The good of the community consists of the good you judge of it, and that he judges of it, and that she judges of it, and that they judge of it, and nothing more. — S

because it ignores the actual functionality or dysfunctionality of the community.

Is a healthy community a good community? Well, a healthy community is just a healthy community, unless we judge it to be good, in which case we naturally say that it is so. — S

No, this is nonsense. Of course a healthy community is a good community, just as a healthy body is a good body or a significantly damaged hammer is a bad hammer. It all comes down to functionality. If your life is a harmoniously functional life then it is a good life, if it is a conflicted and dysfunctional life, then it is a bad life. Insofar as we are and want to be social beings functioning well in relationship is an integral part of what constitutes a good life. And there are objective facts about what kinds of acts will and won't sustain your ability to do well in relationship.

You rant and cast aspersions too much; which makes you look defensive and as though you don't have any decent arguments, and makes replying to you more tedious than it should be. Just stick concisely to the salient points of arguments and you will do much better.

Yes, of course, they would have a detrimental effect on the life of the community. — Janus

Of course, he says! Yet he fails the challenge. No, that in itself is not meaningful ethically unless you associate that with being bad, which brings us right back around to the exact same problem I just explained to you. If you don't associate that with being bad, then how is it of any meaning, ethically?

You might say that is because of how everyone feels about it; — Janus

Yes, of course.

and of course this is a part of the overall true picture. — Janus

It is the most fundamental part of it. Without that part, nothing is of any meaning, ethically.

Everyone dislikes being murdered, raped, stolen from, deceived and so on, and that is an objective fact about human nature. — Janus

Yes. But why are you telling me this?

So I disagree with this:

The good of the community consists of the good you judge of it, and that he judges of it, and that she judges of it, and that they judge of it, and nothing more.
— S

because it ignores the actual functionality or dysfunctionality of the community. — Janus

There is no functionality or dysfunctionality of the community, except relative to some purpose someone or other ascribes to it. And that is of zero ethical relevance, unless we judge it to be so. But that we either judge it to be so or do not judge it to be so only really says anything about us and our judgement, whereas you seem to want to say something more than that.

No, this is nonsense. — Janus

No, that is nonsense.

Of course a healthy community is a good community... — Janus

Yes, of course it is, obviously so long as we judge healthy to be good, and obviously not otherwise.

just as a healthy body is a good body or a significantly damaged hammer is a bad hammer. — Janus

Oh my god. Seriously? That's either equivocation on the sense of "good" or you're not saying anything ethically relevant. That is a novice move.

If your life is a harmoniously functional life then it is a good life, if it is a conflicted and dysfunctional life, then it is a bad life. — Janus

Are you really so naive as to not realise the essential part that your own judgement plays in your expression of what you seem to mistake as some sort of objective fact? If we make a bunch of additional assumptions, then yes. But those additional assumptions just kick the can further down the road.

And if that's just your opinion, then fine. But be more explicit about it.

Insofar as we are and want to be social beings functioning well in relationship is an integral part of what constitutes a good life. — Janus

I don't think anyone here is questioning mere conditionals like that. If I want to get by in society, I'll make sure I fit in well enough. If I want to satiate my desire for murder, I'll murder people. If I want to be a good Samaritan, I'll set out to help others. If I want to be a good salesman, I'll learn to be manipulative.

And there are objective facts about what kinds of acts will and won't sustain your ability to do well in relationship. — Janus

Beside the point.

(Ignoring the last bit).

Of course a healthy community is a good community... — Janus


Yes, of course it is, obviously so long as we judge healthy to be good, and obviously not otherwise. — S

If you don't judge health and functionality to be good and ill-health and dysfunctionality to be bad, then we have nothing to talk about. If you don't believe that the most fundamental aim of community is to live harmoniously together, then I will agree that of course you are entitled to that stupid opinion. But I see nothing to support such an opinion except "that is what I choose to believe"; it would be a perverse, and not a reasonable, opinion.

Say something cogent or be ignored.

Say something — Janus

Okay, I will. I will say this, and only this, and then I will remain silent until I judge the situation differently: here is a spoonful of your own medicine. How does it taste?

:vomit:

What’s a moral statement? From the agent’s perspective, is it a declaration of an interest (hunger is detrimental to good health), or, is it the representation of an interest in the form of an action (I go to the gospel mission every Tuesday to feed the hungry)? — Mww

Will any interest do or does it require a specific kind of interest in order for it to qualify as being a moral one, as compared/contrasted to one that is not. I've all kinds of interests, from people watching to inventing, to rendering, to poetry, to non-fiction, etc.

I find it rather important to set these things out as clearly as possible, otherwise the line of thinking goes awry. That's what prompted the earlier definition of morality, although interestingly enough, I do not agree with that definition entirely. It is current convention though, so. No better place to start. However, it leads to morality being relative/subjective. The SEP article actually changed and mentioned that particular objection to it at one time, although I'm not sure if it still does. I do not remember. I'm also not sure if it was a result of my argument showing it at the time - a number of years back on another forum - or it was just chronological coincidence. I mean, there are number of paid professionals here and elsewhere, some of whom write and/or edit articles on the SEP website. Anyway... I do not find that focusing on the rules gets to the heart of focusing upon the thought/belief underwriting those rules. That's how knowledge of the matter at hand is acquired.

I aslo commend the direction you've taken here wrt the law and morality. On my view, the law is nothing more and nothing less than legitimized morality(legitimized moral belief).

When I have all the facts, I'll make that leap to telling, but until then, its nothing more than personal judgement. Its essential that those on a philosophy forum understand when they have all the facts and when they don't and until they have all the facts, they have no right to be telling anybody anything.

A bit too utopian/idealistic methinks.

We have a right to discuss our personal thought/belief on a public forum. Besides that, the sentiment itself is both self-contradictory and untenable. It sets an impossible criterion to meet. In other words, if what you say is true, then you have no right to say it. You see what I mean? You most certainly do. It is also literally, figuratively, physically, mentally, and practically impossible for anyone at all to have all the facts.

While there is also most certainly a need for us to curtail immoral behaviours, telling someone something is not one of them. How something is told matters much more. The level of respect that the telling is based upon matters. The telling itself is a necessary method. It is not only necessary but it is irrevocable to thinking/believing anything anew. It takes an other - in some way shape or form, so to speak - to show us our own mistakes. If no one told anyone else anything at all language would have never gotten off the ground.

Well, surely you see the need for telling people stuff.