Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank
Would say that morality is more akin to an ideal where as kindness is closer to a state of being or disposition? — LuckilyDefinitive
am hungry, I ought to eat. According to you, that's a sign of resentment, a rejection of part of the universe i — Magnus Anderson
Rejecting the world is only a delusion if you think the world cannot be changed. — Echarmion
I am hungry, I ought to eat. According to you, that's a sign of resentment, a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. — Magnus Anderson
Change. The world will change. I'm talking about accepting the world as it is now; accepting life on its terms. — frank
In a way, yes. ‘Ought’ is a sign that one rejects/resents the experience of being hungry in favour of a world without hunger. — Possibility
That's true. I refuse to die and prefer to live. But is that resentment? Most importantly, is that something negative? Consider the alternative, which is accepting reality as it is. What happens? I die. — Magnus Anderson
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.” — Terry Pratchett, the Hogfather
Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank
Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank
I agree with your analysis except for the use of the term “delusion”, mainly because in psychiatry, delusion is something to be rid of. I’m not sure which word would be better, though. I think it’s a NECESSARY delusion. — Noah Te Stroete
Perhaps necessary in a host scenarios, but there's something to be said about the type of bearing that things such as 'Ought' statements hold on our psychological health. "I ought to be this", but what if you just aren't? Should we feel ashamed because we don't uphold the principles of some external moral doctrine?
I'm not really sure about the answer. — st0ic
Very Nietzschean. It seems like you're getting close to determinism, no? — st0ic
I think it’s a NECESSARY delusion. — Noah Te Stroete
First of all, don’t get ahead of yourself: experiencing hunger does NOT mean I will die. — Possibility
The alternative is accepting the reality that hunger is a part of life, something we can experience many times in our life and even for a prolonged period of time without dying. That is reality as it is. — Possibility
Having said that, dying is also a part of the universe that we tend to reject/resent in favour of a world that doesn’t and cannot exist: one where we don’t die. — Possibility
"I ought to be this", but what if you just aren't? Should we feel ashamed because we don't uphold the principles of some external moral doctrine? — st0ic
If you're hungry it means that if you don't eat something soon you'll starve to death. You have two choices here:
1) try to find food so that you can stay alive
2) accept death
So what one ought to do? Notice that either choice would count as an ought.
The idea put forward is that every ought is a sign of resentment (maybe even ressentiment?) So whatever you choose, you're being resentful. Which is rather odd, don't you think? — Magnus Anderson
It amazes me that you honestly believe any experience of hunger is a sign of impending death. — Possibility
Neither of these is an ‘ought’, because an ‘ought’ is not a choice. When you transform a choice into an ‘ought’, this is a sign that you resent having to experience hunger at all. — Possibility
If you can get away with it -- yes — Magnus Anderson
morality is not a delusion — Magnus Anderson
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.