Although it does not yet seem germane, it may become so later. Just to be clear, on my view a thought/belief is justified if it is well grounded. Being well grounded does not require being argued for and/or convincing anyone else. Hence, a justified belief does not require convincing anyone else either. This makes perfect sense in light of each and every paradigm shift.

But yes... I'm attempting to remain coherent.

Cheers.

:cool:

Although it does not yet seem germane, it may become so later. — creativesoul

Definitely. If it does not become so after everything has been said, then we are doing something wrong.

Indeed.

:blush:

Just to be clear, on my view a thought/belief is justified if it is well grounded. Being well grounded does not require being argued for and/or convincing anyone else. Hence, a justified belief does not require convincing anyone else either. This makes perfect sense in light of each and every paradigm shift. — creativesoul

I will add that this is to be considered in contrast to active thinking, which can, at best, be approximated through the notion of thought/belief.

To circle back to the point I'm making: once thought/belief is awakened to the ethical imperative of culture, then all subsequent talk of morality is necessarily predicated on the infrastructure of thought/belief.

So when I say that moral feeling is deeper than moral belief, mean to point at a qualitative shift, in which the landscape of moral belief is swallowed up and vanishes into an acute ethical conviction.

I haven't denied that morally responsible individuals can rationally defy the state; so I don't know where this is coming from. As to conscientious objection, I don't see that as sociopathic at all; such individuals just have a more comprehensive sense of compassion and empathy and a wider sense of community. Either that or they're fuckin' cowards (just joking, of course :wink:)

The toughest part of using thought/belief - as a foundational criterion - is being able to effectively account for all the different ones by virtue of translating them all into terms of the content of the correlation themselves. I myself am not even close to being sold that I am capable of doing so.

Work in process.

Your criterion for what counts as being moral(in kind) cannot be substituted in many instances of the use of "moral" when it's referring to kinds. — creativesoul

Give me a demonstrative example, then.

This is to say that there is no thought/belief at all(period) unless the candidate forming, having, and/or holding thought/belief is competent with language. — creativesoul

I haven't said that and nor does what I have said entail that. Again you are confusing yourself with your sloppy terminology and reading. I have already acknowledged that we could reasonably say that something we might think of as thinking and/or believing is possible pre-linguistically.

I haven't denied that morally responsible individuals can rationally defy the state; so I don't know where this is coming from. — Janus

I didn't mean to imply that, I was just bringing up a point I'm having a difficulty understanding.

As to conscientious objection, I don't see that as sociopathic at all; such individuals just have a more comprehensive sense of compassion and empathy and a wider sense of community. — Janus

My point in bring up the conscientious objector is: 1)societal morals are practicalogical; 2)that individual ethical commitments constitute a much greater reality to the moral agent (in that they are not based on utility, but principle); and 3) that the individual commitment is absolute, and has greater existential weight, in contrast to the relativistic societal mandate.

...one cannot have thoughts or beliefs, period, until one has acquired the requisite level of linguistic competency. — Janus

...I have already acknowledged that we could reasonably say that something we might think of as thinking and/or believing is possible pre-linguistically. — Janus

So, which is it?

The toughest part of using thought/belief - as a foundational criterion - is being able to effectively account for all the different ones by virtue of translating them all into terms of the content of the correlation themselves. I myself am not even close to being sold that I am capable of doing so.

Work in process. — creativesoul

I believe in you. Just don't try to convince me. :cool:

Your criterion for what counts as being moral(in kind) cannot be substituted in many instances of the use of "moral" when it's referring to kinds.
— creativesoul

Give me a demonstrative example, then — Janus

Some morals are the results of lessons. You know, the moral of the story...

The Fox and the Grapes is not about behaviour towards others. There are all sorts of morally relevant thoughts and beliefs that are about one's own behaviour and it's affect/effect upon onself. Those are not concerning behaviour towards others. They are moral thought/belief nonetheless.

Yeah yeah yeah...

:yum:

Before you know it, you'll be on board...

You know I'm a sucker for a nicely wound thread. :scream:

(Add. I've been waiting to use the screamface for a while now.)

We aught get back to the distinction between ethical thought/belief and adopted pre-reflective.

My point in bring up the conscientious objector is the bring up the point that, 1)societal morals are practicalogical; 2)that individual ethical commitments constitute a much greater reality to the moral agent; and 3) that the individual commitment is absolute, and has greater existential weight, in contrast to the relativistic societal mandate. — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree that societal morals are "practicalogical" (I take you to mean 'pragmatic'). The question is as to whether they serve power elites or everyone. Going to war over ideology or to gain economic and territorial advantage, or out of an anxious, even paranoid, desire to preemptively strike is not morally sound, in my view.

I also agree that a sufficiently intelligent,sophisticated and thoughtful individual should have her own reasoned ethical commitments.

I don't, however, see the individual commitment as absolute. The individual's ethical commitments are always answerable to the most intelligent, sophisticated, and thoughtful inter-subjective consensus. Also, I think it's just a fact that the community has "greater existential weight" (insofar as I can make sense of that notion) than the individual. If it doesn't then there is something terribly wrong with the most intelligent, sophisticated and thoughtful strata of a society. In other words the collective ethical consensus must in that case be motivated by something corrupt.

How many times do I have to tell you that under my definitions having or holding thoughts or beliefs is not the same as thinking or believing in the kind of "proto" or primordial sense that we might attribute to animals.

the individual's ethical commitments are always answerable to the most intelligent, sophisticated, and thoughtful inter-subjective consensus. — Janus

That is only true if their ethical commitment is predicated on the authority of another. And, then the commitment is indeed rather capricious, in that it lies outside the jurisdiction of the immediate decision of the ethical agent.

If it doesn't then there is something terribly wrong with the most intelligent, sophisticated and thoughtful strata of a society. In other words the collective ethical consensus must in that case be motivated by something corrupt. — Janus

I can't deny that you may be laying out a sad fact of societal ethics. If I were to place it in a single concept, it would be "ideology"

Moral thought is most appositely thought of as being concerned with one's relation to others. Concern about how ones' actions will affect one's own life is more properly thought of as being in the province of ethical thought. If you lived alone in the forest, there would be no morality for you but there would be ethical considerations, in other words.

No, I'm not claiming it is predicated upon authority at all, but on recognizing what is the best and finest thinking on the subject. If you want to be educated about ethics and morality you will need to study the best works available on those subjects, because you have no hope of thinking of all the critiques and perspectives that can be applied in the ethical domain by yourself. Of course it is you that must finally decide, but decisions will always be more or less well-informed.

When it comes to the most significant moral proscriptions; you shall not murder, rape, torture and so on, there is really nothing to think about, anyway. It is only in relation to moral subtleties that much thought is required. And quite often that consists in apprising yourself of the facts involved in situations, anyway, rather than determining in prinicple what is right and what is wrong

Societal ethics are very closely aligned to appearances, or how it seems to be for another. Whereas, the ethical existence of the individual is focused on how closely do I appear to align with how I should be (as in not a murderer, not a rapist, &c.); here, society has no bearing on my ethical status.

I can't deny that you may be laying out a sad fact of societal ethics. If I were to place it in a single concept, it would be "ideology" — Merkwurdichliebe

I would not consider anything ideologically based to be a basis for good societal ethics.

Societal ethics are very closely aligned to appearances, or how it seems to be for another. Whereas, the ethical existence of the individual is focused on how closely do I appear to align with how I should be (as in not a murderer, not a rapist, &c.); here, society has no bearing on my ethical status. — Merkwurdichliebe

I disagree because it is the negative effects that such actions will inevitably have on any society, on others who matter to you, that is the reason those actions are wrong. Of course they may also negatively impact you if you commit them, but only insofar as you are a socially concerned and motivated person and not a sociopath.

How many times do I have to tell you that under my definitions having or holding thoughts or beliefs is not the same as thinking or believing in the kind of "proto" or primordial sense that we might attribute to animals. — Janus

So you're ok with the idea that there can be thinking/believing without thought/belief?

Are you just objecting to my use of "having" thought/belief? If so that's a bit petty considering the account I have to offer, don't you think?

I disagree because it is the negative effects that such actions will inevitably have on any society, on others who matter to you, that is the reason those actions are wrong. Of course they may also negatively impact you if you commit them, but only insofar as you are a socially concerned and motivated person and not a sociopath. — Janus

But if you are generating your ethical judgments from the utilitarian principle, then all that needs happen is for the utility to shift (whether in perception or reality), and so much for the decisive ethical agent. But in the sociopathical delusion of the ethically convicted one, abides an unalterable principle, which no reason or societal authority can hope to budge.

Moral thought is most appositely thought of as being concerned with one's relation to others. Concern about how ones' actions will affect one's own life is more properly thought of as being in the province of ethical thought. If you lived alone in the forest, there would be no morality for you but there would be ethical considerations, in other words. — Janus

The Fox and the Grapes is a story that teaches a moral lesson.

You're quibbling over criterion. You've made a universal claim about what counts as "moral". That claim contradicts actual conventional and common use.

You've also made a universal claim about no thought/belief being prior to competent language use.

You've also claimed that thinking/believing could happen prior to language.

These are not problems with my reading comprehension.

@Janus
@creativesoul

As much as I hate to, perhaps we should all rewatch our favorite movie: A Clockwork Orange.

But in the sociopathical delusion of the ethically convicted one, abides an unalterable principle, which no reason or societal authority can hope to budge. — Merkwurdichliebe

Unshakable certainty(conviction) in one's own thought/belief is not always 'a bad thing'. It is certainly not enough for one to be a sociopath. All sociopaths may have such conviction, but not everyone with such conviction is a sociopath.

Here we're getting into the realm of that which did not exist in it's entirety prior to our account of it. Such is true of many common notions, including many used in ethical/moral discourse.

No, I don't think it's a 'petty" point at all, but a better way of maintaining what is a useful distinction. As to the account you have to offer; I don't even know what it consists in, beyond its statements of what seems trivially obvious, and hence uninteresting. I mean, really, the whole topic is uninteresting because it is obvious that from one perspective you could say that morals have their source in individuals and from another perspective that they have their source in cultures, in communities.

From yet another perspective you could say they have their source in pre-human instinctive social behavior and experience. Those perspectives are not necessarily incompatible, or they only seem incompatible, because they talk past one another.