_______________________________________________________After these steps we try to spread our morality to others as a sense of approval — hachit
rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from. — hachit
Analyzing your comments, it concludes that our experiences revolve around our moral objectivity. — SethRy
I think otherwise, because if it were to be by experience, then our moral ontology would be all subjective. There would be no objective morality. — SethRy
I believe our human moral ontology and moral grounds, as a theist, would be from God. — SethRy
But not reason. Never reason. Reason has nothing to do with it. Human beings are incapable of reasoning out their ethics and morals. If they try to they just delude themselves. At every level of analysis it's all personal preference and feeling. Summary? Murder whom you like; it's only wrong if you feel that it is. Source: just ask mere-s, aka S. — tim wood
We start life with the need to continue our species existence. — hachit
Then we move to develop them independently (divine command, unitilitarianism, and whatever else) then to form governments we use contractarianism. — hachit
After these steps we try to spread our morality to others as a sense of approval, the idea being we don't want to live thinking we did something wrong (not wanting our morals challenged). Those were disagree with are our enemies and we treat them how our independent morals demand (so different for everyone). — hachit
That doesn't explain, for instance, how some people can be pro-life and others pro-choice — praxis
That doesn't explain, for instance, how some people can be pro-life and others pro-choice.
— praxis
"Evolution doesn't work so as to produce a bunch of clones in this regard." — Terrapin Station
There must be some "mysterious extra-mental phenomenon," at work too. — praxis
There must be some "mysterious extra-mental phenomenon," at work too.
— praxis
No, that doesn't follow, unless you add some false premise along the lines of what Terrapin said or some other unfounded notion. — S
The 'mysterious extra-mental phenomenon' in the specific case that I mentioned involves concepts such as liberty (freedom to choose), and I guess the sacred (sacredness of human life). Though our moral intuitions may start out relatively the same, the culture we grow up in imbues us with concepts and divergent moral frameworks, like conservatism or liberalism.
Our ability to cooperate on a large scale is more dependent on our ability to form concepts like liberty and sacredness than it is to inherent moral intuitions. Can any other species of mammal, for example, cooperate on the scale that we can? No, and what do we have to thank or curse for that? Mysterious extra-mental phenomenon. — praxis
where I explained my position over and over again, — S
I began by showing the inadequacy of your explanation which, to reiterate, is its inability to account for divergent moral frameworks. — praxis
Correct like I, said I, I believe we start with that then make our own. I consider into my thesis that we may reject " the need to continue our species existence." in the future.That we do, does not imply that we ought.
"I'm not asking for what is right or wrong". — hachit
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.