This discussion sharply went downhill when it began to be filled with insanely repetitive gibberish about "thought/belief" and the like. Stuff like this:

Language allows us to acquire knowledge of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our naming it. Some of those things are themselves existentially dependent upon language use.

Oh look. My fan club has arrived.

:cool:

Sure people my say we learn it from a deity but some of them (if they were really) don't seem to care about human life. — hachit

...and maybe some deities care about all life. Maybe their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life? Wouldn't that make more sense? :chin:

Sure people my say we learn it from a deity but some of them (if they were really) don't seem to care about human life.
— hachit

...and maybe some deities care about all life. Their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life. Wouldn't that make more sense? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

That's just speculation.

It sounds to me that implicit in the discussion is how to avoid what one might call corruption of discourse, or in economic terms 'moral hazard'. There is always a risk of entering a relationship with another conscious entity where 'morals' are either imposed by an external agent or presumed to be followed, in a way that necessarily causes confusion and truncates meaning (such as when someone presumes to act one behalf of another person.) We often take for granted that language is minimally invasive, but in general this isn't always the case. [Hypothetically it would be difficult to have conversation with a person from a society of behemoths who communicated through lightning bolts, for example (you wouldn't get past 'Hi'.)]

I haven't read most of what creativesoul wrote. What would you succinctly say that he gives as the source of morals? — Terrapin Station

He could explain himself better. But, he might agree with something like: the source of morals is multifaceted. We have been proceeding methodologically to parse out "common sense conclusions about existential dependency and timeframes".

Oh look. My fan club has arrived. — creativesoul

Where have they been the last dozen pages?

This discussion sharply went downhill when it began to be filled with insanely repetitive gibberish about "thought/belief" and the like. — S

Downhill for S, is uphill for everyone else. And, speaking of going downhill, you never addressed the issue with Hume.

@S

We have agreed upon a qualifier, an existential constant by which we can conduct a thought experiment. Where is your qualification? where is your thought? where is your experiment?

and maybe some deities care about all life. Maybe their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life? Wouldn't that make more sense?

True
I'm just saying that we need to realize that there are several religion's and it hard to prove them wrong or right.

He could explain himself better. — Merkwurdichliebe

"Succinct" isn't in his tool kit for one.

Re "multifaceted" what would the facets succinctly be?

A few variables we've examined are: prelinguistic thought/belief, societal conditioning, ethical authority, and internalization of morality.

internalization of morality — Merkwurdichliebe

What would that one be? How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)?

What would that one be? How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)? — Terrapin Station

That is why we are examining it. At this stage we pressuppose everything involved in prelinguistic thought/belief. The concept of "internalization" is admittedly an attempt at psychological speculation. We have made the least progress with this category.

How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)? — Terrapin Station

Practice. Or perhaps a whip?

How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)?
— Terrapin Station

Practice. Or perhaps a whip? — praxis

How do you internalize language?

Thought

Practice. Or perhaps a whip? — praxis

The problem is that morality never occurs as anything other than something internal.

At this stage we pressuppose everything involved in prelinguistic thought/belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thought/belief are already internal.

At any rate, so the rest is like saying that "AC/DC is a source of the Cult"?

Perhaps. And we are looking for the source of morals. We've already established that evaluations of prelinguistic assessments are primarily acquired from an external source.

Thought/belief are already internal. — Terrapin Station

This does not mean thought/belief cannot be affected by something external.

We've already established that evaluations of prelinguistic assessments are primarily acquired from an external source. — Merkwurdichliebe

That makes no sense to me. How would you acquire an evaluation from an external source?

This does not mean thought/belief cannot be affected by something external. — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course. But the wording you used was "internalize morality," as if morality could be something external that we'd then need to internalize.

We've established an understanding of this through the last 12 pages of rigorous debate, it has been existentially quantified.

The problem is that morality never occurs as anything other than something internal. — Terrapin Station

So my morality is internal to you?

So my morality is internal to you? — praxis

:lol:

So my morality is internal to you? — praxis

I can't literally observe your morality. I can only observe utterances a la sounds/marks etc. that you make, correlated to your morality.

It's like asking if your daydreams are internal to me, as if I could literally observe your daydreams.

So then only you have morality, I suppose. How would you possibly prove that another has morality by referring to "utterances a la sounds/marks etc."

Seems you've sufficiently answered the question for yourself...

TS is the source of morals.

So then only you have morality, I suppose. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do only I have daydreams?

How would you possibly prove that another has morality by referring to "utterances a la sounds/marks etc." — Merkwurdichliebe

How are we attempting to have discussions of the caliber that we're attempting to have in threads like this when we haven't even learned that empirical claims aren't provable, period? Shouldn't we take 101-level courses and master that material before we try attending graduate seminars?

How are we attempting to have discussions of the caliber that we're attempting to have in threads like this when we haven't even learned that empirical claims aren't provable, period — Terrapin Station

We are not making empirical claims here, we are conducting a thought experiment in existential quantification.

"X has/doesn't have morality" is an empirical claim.

Maybe we should start with a lot more basic/simple material first.

"X has/doesn't have morality" is an empirical claim. — Terrapin Station

Neither @praxis, @creativesoul, nor I have made such statements in our particular discourse.