I say it was reached in the matter of factual discourse because it proved itself pragmatically useful -- it got results, it resolved disagreements, it built consensus, it didn't leave people in an intractable mire of unresolvable disputes about what is or isn't real. — Pfhorrest
I give exactly that reason for why we should adopt a similar practice for moral discourse — Pfhorrest
doing otherwise leaves us in an intractable mire of unresolvable disputes about what is or isn't moral. Either because "nothing's actually moral, that's all just, like, your opinion, man", or because "God has handed down his unquestionable moral decrees and anyone who disagrees is a heathen who will burn in hell!" To put it dramatically. My whole approach boils down to: don't do either of those things. — Pfhorrest
Moral 'accounting' method = ?? — Isaac
People do not routinely murder whomever they feel like killing, they do not routinely steal from others, they do not routinely rape and torture. They also do not routinely try to universally account for everyone's moral sentiments — Isaac
So our account of physical reality already has something to say about these 'oughts'. It tells us how they are likely to be generated, it tells us how they are affected by which external forces, it tells us how they change over time, it tells us how similar/dissimilar they are across cultures, it tells us how they change as we develop... — Isaac
People do not routinely believe other than what their religions tell them about the creation of the world, or what happens when we die, or the fate of mankind, etc. They also do not routinely try to universally account for all observations (i.e. do science).
Within a given worldview there's no problem, pretty much by definition: everyone agrees, or they wouldn't be within that worldview. — Pfhorrest
It's at the boundaries between them, where disputes emerge, that a method of resolving disputes is important. — Pfhorrest
It also tells us all that same kind of stuff about how people come to form opinions about what is real, but we don't then rely on psychological research into how people form descriptive beliefs in order to do something like physics. — Pfhorrest
Or more poignantly: psychological research into why people are inclined to believe in gods, magic, etc, tells us nothing at all about whether or not god, magic, etc, are actually real. — Pfhorrest
What people think, and why they think it, is a different question from what thoughts are properly justifiable, i.e. what it is correct to think, what is true. — Pfhorrest
Says who? Moral discoursers?Incomplete insofar as a grand metaphysical system of some kind is required for moral discourse — Mww
What part of "in philosophy" don't you understand?and wrong insofar as ambiguity is not everywhere, re: mathematics, logical and general physical law
Of course not. One can often right a wrong.and, moral choices are always irreversible.....
The point was that people do not do the accounting method you're suggesting we should do and yet do not end up in some kind of moral hellscape — Isaac
Agreed. Not sure how you think anyone is more likely to agree on an accounting method than they were to agree on the moral 'oughts' in the first place. — Isaac
You’re projecting “moral hellscape”; I never said that. — Pfhorrest
some accounting methods cannot work — yelling at each other authoritatively and throwing up our hands in despair, specifically — and my method is just what’s left over if you reject the both of those. — Pfhorrest
Really? If you think your method is literally all that's left after discarding those two options then you're either astonishingly hubristic, or you really haven't understood what I mean by 'your method' when it comes to the accounting procedure. — Isaac
until they can be shown unacceptable by appeal to our common experiences — Pfhorrest
That's the method I'm talking about. You keep referring to this 'accounting for', or here 'appeal to' without specifying how such activities are supposed to produce any resolution. — Isaac
"OK... (long pause). I think abortion really is not wrong because I considered x, y and z and it seems to me that the best way to account for all those factors is if abortion were not wrong"
"Ahh...I also took account of factors x, y and z, but it seemed to me that the best way to account for all three would be if abortion was wrong" — Isaac
If all you're saying is that people should give their moral choices some prior thought then you really are as hubristic as you sound. Like people don't do that already. — Isaac
Please help me identify this belief system. — Avery
All I'm saying about them that's different from you is "don't give up there, figure out why you still disagree". — Pfhorrest
You seem to be saying it's impossible to resolve; if people disagree, tough, nothing to be done there. I say that that's just quitting. Resolution may be hard to find, but we can never know for certain that it's impossible. All we can do is either keep trying or give up. — Pfhorrest
But if we can't even get past the groundwork of "yes there is something knowable out there to be known", there's no point in going into the details of how to sort it out yet. — Pfhorrest
but for some some reason they must ignore the possibility the the reason they disagree is because x, y and z are post hoc rationalisations to justify feelings arising from a combination of biological and cultural influences — Isaac
You've singled out moral thought to be immunised from scientific investigation. — Isaac
You've said that no matter what, we should act as if the feelings some of us have about the categorical nature of moral imperatives must be considered genuine, this despite a mountain of evidence that they are mostly either primitive or deeply entrenched models of how to act resulting from either genetic or early cultural experiences, not from any collection of 'reasons'. — Isaac
How on earth have you concluded that?. That if we don't take our post hoc rationalisations seriously there's absolutely no other way we can resolve disagreements? How do you think the disagreements arose in the first place? — Isaac
If we can't even establish if unicorns exist there's not much point discussing their tail colour. — Isaac
They try to convince each other why their moral opinions are correct and the others' aren't. I'm saying that that's the right way to do things, instead of either appealing to authority/faith/popularity/etc, or else saying it's impossible to resolve. You [Isaac] seem to be saying it's impossible to resolve; if people disagree, tough, nothing to be done there. I say that that's just quitting. — Pfhorrest
Because that is just to summarily dismiss that x, y, and z are good reasons at all. If they both agree that they are good reasons, but they still don't agree with the conclusion, then there must be some other places where they disagree. — Pfhorrest
Telling someone what people think and why they think it doesn't answer any questions at all about what to think -- whether we're talking about what to think about moral topics, or any other topics. — Pfhorrest
This exact same psychologicization can be applied to all our non-moral beliefs. We just went over this a few posts ago, and you admitted as much. Most of the time our non-moral beliefs are also a result of something less than a perfectly rational process, some combination of genetic and social factors. — Pfhorrest
You have given no reason whatsoever why a similar approach cannot be taken to questions about morality. — Pfhorrest
A sure-fire way to not resolve the disagreement is to say "all of your premises are baseless illusions you only think of because of your genetics and upbringing". That leaves no grounds at all to answer the question from — Pfhorrest
what should be allowed or forbidden, what should be taxed to extinction, what should be made more accessible, etc. This the topic of those 'culture wars', not individual morality. — Olivier5
Because that is just to summarily dismiss that x, y, and z are good reasons at all. If they both agree that they are good reasons, but they still don't agree with the conclusion, then there must be some other places where they disagree. — Pfhorrest
Why 'must' there? Why, contrary to all the psychological and neurological evidence, do you keep insisting that their feelings that these are good reasons is sufficient to believe that they are? — Isaac
these feelings are generated by deep models in the brain and are not the result of the rationalisations that are attached to them when discussed — Isaac
No, absolutely not. Our non-moral physical beliefs are not most of the time the result of some combination of genetic and social factors. They are in vast part the result of interaction with an external world. It is far and away the most prevalent and most well-supported explanation for our beliefs about the physical world. — Isaac
When the 'accounting process' for physical reality was widely disputed, theories about physical reality were relativist too (Gods, creation myths, animism...), we only have such widespread agreement now because we also agree about the accounting method (science). We no longer just 'have a bit of think about' the opinions of everyone we happen to have spoken to about physical reality. We consult experts in the field using a (largely) agreed on method of trials, controls, statistical analysis and peer review. This 'method' is based on the prior belief that there is an external cause for the similarity in our observations. — Isaac
Change the environment in which people are raised such as to generate the moral thought you think is best. — Isaac
I'm going to try a new approach to getting you folks to leave this thread. — Avery
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.