What makes you so sure it is my favorite movie? Actually it's not, but it's probably in the top twenty. :grin:

You're running different issues together.

I work from a criterion for thought/belief which is universal. There are no examples to the contrary.

As far as the rest goes, we're talking about a source of all morals. The origen of every single one. Different perspectives may arrive at different answers, and indeed those answers are not necessarily incompatible. However, their compatibility requires a framework that can effectively exhaust them all. Hence, my universal criterion for what counts as both "moral" and "thought/belief".

Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from?

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. — creativesoul

You are correct. I only intended to use the sociopath as an extreme example, in order to illustrate that sociopathy can be found in societal ethics equally as much.

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. — creativesoul

Indeed. Thing's are not always what they at first appear to be. Sometimes you have to smash it to pieces and reconstruct it, other times you have to throw it far into the distance and rediscover it. Philosophy is so versatile in its methodology, it is rendered useless.

I bet there are at least 3 more Kubrick films in that top twenty. :grin:

I work from a criterion for thought/belief which is universal. There are no examples to the contrary. — creativesoul

And just what is that criterion?

Philosophy has been relegated as "dead" as a result of specialization and all of the irresolvable seemingly astoundingly ridiculous things that philosophy proper has arrived at.

It's still quite relevant. Ethics in particular. Applied, that is... right?

Right now I can only think of one absolute definite!

All thought/belief consist entirely of correlations drawn between different things. All thought/belief are meaningful to the thinking/believing creature. All thought/belief presupposes it's own correspondence to that which has happened... somewhere along 'the line'.

Those are three basic statements about thought/belief in general. The first is the criterion you've asked about.

Applied, that is... right? — creativesoul

Indeed. Here, possibly?

one of the most underrated and unknown is Paths of Glory. Also an ethically charged story. :wink: strangelove

We're moving in that direction already!

:wink:

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

It’s an example of cognitive dissonance. The moral is to not lie to ourselves? What does it matter if we lie to ourselves if there are no other selves? In any case, we’d only lie to ourselves in this way because we have an image of ourselves that we’re interested in maintaining in relation to others.

A story of moral sour grapes might be something like a wolf (a more social species) eating a whole rabbit by itself and not sharing it with the pack. Because the wolf has a strong self image of strictly adhering to pack norms, not to mention that pack exile could mean death or at least no longer having the potential for gene propagation, the wolf chooses to believe that he wasn’t at fault and blames the rabbit for being a little sour, and claiming that none of the other wolves would have wanted it. It was actually virtuous of him to not subject the pack to the sourness of the rabbit, so he comes to believe and claim.

I do find the notion of intuition to be without a common referent that existed in it's entirety prior to our accounts of it. It's use - without delineation - leaves me wondering what the speaker is talking about. Given that it is being claimed to give rise to moral judgment, I wonder if that is indicative of a claim regarding initial emergence/source/origen of all moral judgment or if it simply points out that some moral judgment happens automatically after one has a basis of moral thought/belief from which to judge. — creativesoul

I think that intuition can be both instinctual and conditioned by culture, and we can also intentionally condition ourselves.

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

It’s an example of cognitive dissonance. The moral is to not lie to ourselves? What does it matter if we lie to ourselves if there are no other selves? In any case, we’d only lie to ourselves in this way because we have an image of ourselves that we’re interested in maintaining in relation to others.

A story of moral sour grapes might be something like a wolf (a more social species) eating a whole rabbit by itself and not sharing it with the pack. Because the wolf has a strong self image of strictly adhering to pack norms, not to mention that pack exile could mean death or at least no longer having the potential for gene propagation, the wolf chooses to believe that he wasn’t at fault and blames the rabbit for being a little sour, and claiming that none of the other wolves would have wanted it. It was actually virtuous of him to not subject the pack to the sourness of the rabbit, so he comes to believe and claim. — praxis

To be clear...

This entire project - the setting out of the origen of all morals - must be approached from a method lacking moral value judgment. This is a meta-ethical discussion. All morals must be accounted for.

With that in mind...

I'm not offering assent/dissent and/or agreement/disagreement of the moral value. I'm not condoning/condemning. I'm not offering a value judgment at all. Rather, The Fox and the Grapes is a fable that teaches a moral lesson, or so it is said. It's one of those stories that after reading it, a teacher will often ask "So, what's the moral of the story?"

The specifics do not matter here. What does matter is what that particular example has in common with each and every other example called "moral". It's about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, and often it can also be about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That's what all things "moral" have in common that makes them so. There are no exceptions. I'm not making this up. I'm not defining this into existence. I'm not assuming what's at issue.

Rather, I'm taking proper account of what counts as being "moral". You example fits in perfectly, just like all the rest. It's deduction, not induction. We look at all the examples. We remove all of that which is subject to individual particulars. We look at what's left and assess it's relevance/adequacy for deducing a universal criterion.

That which is moral is always about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behavior.

Moral - in kind - as compared/contrasted to moral judgment which has it's counterpart immoral and is a synonym for "good", "right", etc.

Follow me?

I do find the notion of intuition to be without a common referent that existed in it's entirety prior to our accounts of it. It's use - without delineation - leaves me wondering what the speaker is talking about. Given that it is being claimed to give rise to moral judgment, I wonder if that is indicative of a claim regarding initial emergence/source/origen of all moral judgment or if it simply points out that some moral judgment happens automatically after one has a basis of moral thought/belief from which to judge.
— creativesoul

I think that intuition can be both instinctual and conditioned by culture, and we can also intentionally condition ourselves. — praxis

I would agree. Like thought/belief, there are different 'levels' of evolutionary complexity.

Like thought/belief, there are different 'levels' of evolutionary complexity. — creativesoul

At a certain level, the explanatory usefulness of the role of evolution in the source of morals becomes exhausted. In all subsequent discourse, the role of evolution is automatically implied as a necessary factor in the source of morals. Any further talk of it is redundant.

At a certain level, the explanatory usefulness of the role of evolution in the source of morals becomes exhausted. — Merkwurdichliebe

Certainly. But, let us not make the mistake of putting the cart before the horse, or counting chooks before they hatch.

We'll have all the time in the world to talk about that when we get there. It's about much more than the role of evolution. I don't talk in such terms to begin with. There's much more to it than meets the eye...

All morals rest their laurels upon rudimentary thought/belief. Being used and/or being useful doesn't amount to much at all on my view. It's the goal that matters most, and that holds good in ethics as well. Being used in the best way known is the aim.

Utilization of that knowledge(the origen of all thought/belief, including but certainly not limited to thought/belief that is moral in kind), goes far beyond mere talk of 'the role of evolution'.

At a certain level, the explanatory usefulness of the role of evolution in the source of morals becomes exhausted. In all subsequent discourse, the role of evolution is automatically implied as a necessary factor in the source of morals. Any further talk of it is redundant. — Merkwurdichliebe

Indeed. Our account must be amenable to evolution. That's all. That's merely one standard of many measures that need be taken. Guidelines to meet and/or exceed.

You still open to the idea of existential quantification?

We'll have all the time in the world to talk about that when we get there. It's about much more than the role of evolution. I don't talk in such terms to begin with. There's much more to it than meets the eye... — creativesoul

Indeed. I just wish to ensure we are primed for when that time arrives.

We just covered it.

The complexity of thought/belief at the rudimentary, basic, and/or foundational level must evolve in terms amenable to evolution. Language is covered already. Seamlessly, or at least as seamlessly as possible...

That's it.

You primed?

Pre-linguistic thought/belief must exist in such a way that it is able to evolve into linguistic thought/belief.

Agree?

If so... we're done talking about the role of evolution.

You still open to the idea of existential quantification? — creativesoul

Yes, I think it is worthy of investigation.

Pre-linguistic thought/belief must exist in such a way that it is able to evolve into linguistic.

Agree?

If so... we're done talking about the role of evolution. — creativesoul

I'm primed :fire:

Yes, I think it is worthy of investigation. — Merkwurdichliebe

I asked because I've already been using it throughout. Universal claims, while being prone to reductio, are nonetheless the strongest possible justificatory ground(in terms of arguing for warrant), especially when they are verifiable/falsifiable. If there are no known examples to the contrary, but there are examples, then there are no empirical reasons for dissent.

That's exactly what's been going on.

In between other things, that is...

I want to return to the discussion when it pertained to the distinction between moral thought/belief and ethical thought/belief. We were not finished with the nuance in that regard.

Particularly, the bit about considering others.

To what extent must one consider an other in order for her/him to be thinking ethically about the other?

I asked because I've already been using it throughout. Universal claims, while being prone to reductio, are nonetheless the strongest possible justificatory ground, especially when they are verifiable/falsifiable.

That's exactly what's been going on. — creativesoul

I had that feeling.

You may find this interesting, or you may not. The written word alone cannot tell me - yet - about the amount of sincerity and/or actual interest you have here. I'll tell you anyway.

My thought/belief about government - as an entity - is largely along the lines of Thomas Paine. Particularly regarding it's responsibility to it's citizens. There's also much to be said regarding conflicts of interest between the wealthiest people and the poorest people. Further talk about what counts as worthy of holding public office, particularly when it comes to the candidate's own historical record and/or personal vested interests. This line of thinking leads us to overturning specific pieces of legislation(and/or Supreme Court decisions) and along with them some mistakenly set precedent(s).

Common Sense.

Samurai the snowball while stepping aside...

I tend to get myself in trouble with such talk...

:joke:

I'm too lazy to lead a revolution. Besides that I've got too much else to do! :wink:

I asked because I've already been using it throughout. Universal claims, while being prone to reductio, are nonetheless the strongest possible justificatory ground, especially when they are verifiable/falsifiable.

That's exactly what's been going on.
— creativesoul

I had that feeling. — Merkwurdichliebe

And it can be 'validated', so to speak... in conventional layperson/psychological terms. There is plenty of evidence to verify/falsify the claim.

We look at what's left and assess it's relevance/adequacy for deducing a universal criterion. — creativesoul

I thought the point of your sour grapes example, in the context of its use, had to do with trying to establish the universal criterion of weather or not morals require other sentient beings.

Maybe I misconstrued the point. In any case, grapes aren’t sentient. What do you think the moral of the sour grapes fable is, just out of curiosity?