There is no transcendent source material. — Tom Storm

You are pretty much in agreement with Moore and Foot, then.

That depends on your views of morality.

It is not against the guidelines. Posting a link in the thread is unless it is relevant to the conversation.

No link posted.

I think the whole problem can be easily addressed here by framing the is-ought problem with a the lens of emotivism. It is a conscious association not an instinctual one.

We also know that we are neurological wired to favour whatever outcome serves us. So, our evolutionary adjusts have, so some degree, led us to associate 'good' outcomes as 'ought to be' situations.

It does seem to suit species survival. The problem behind this though is the tools used to assess how favourable an outcome is alongside our temporal appreciation - short vs long term repercussions.

Where it comes down to basic survival (meaning immediate existential threats) the is-ought is overruled by instinctual apparatus.

This is not a good song. But it is all this thread deserves.

Yes, doing what is good is doing what someone else wants

It's more than just our neurological development. Even the most simple lifeforms display self-preservation, it permeates all life.

minus "self"

I agree that other lifeforms are not self aware the way we are. I would argue that our advanced development allows self-actualisation. The fundamental property of life, however, is the same across the board.

Hmm. Or you could... cooperate....

Reported to moderators as self-promotion in accordance with site guidelines against "Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters". — Wayfarer

Thanks. :up:

Seems to me that people are forever banging on about 'the good', as if it were out there to be discovered, or simply a matter of common sense, but actually, it seems slippery, a contingent thing, a piece of construction work. — Tom Storm

I doubt that you - Our aw shucks, I’m not a philosopher, Aussie Everyman – has trouble knowing the difference between right and wrong very often.

Seems to me that people are forever banging on about 'the good', as if it were out there to be discovered, or simply a matter of common sense, but actually, it seems slippery, a contingent thing, a piece of construction work.
— Tom Storm

I doubt that you - Our aw shucks, I’m not a philosopher, Aussie Everyman – has trouble knowing the difference between right and wrong very often. — T Clark

Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time.

Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time. — Joshs

What Joshs says. And my curiosity here is what 'ethical correctness' consists of. It's likely not the same thing as 'the good' given its contingent and shifting nature.

I doubt that you — T Clark

has trouble knowing the difference between right and wrong very often. — T Clark

Whether you or I can make reasonable choices on occasion is not really the point. The point is what lies as foundational for moral behaviour and why. Uncovering this seems to be the role of a philosopher, it's probably beyond the intuitions of a couple of assholes on the internet.

Whether you or I can make reasonable choices on occasion is not really the point. — Tom Storm

But it's not "on occasion." It's almost always. I don't think I've ever done wrong by accident - because I didn't know it was wrong. It's not that I've never done wrong, but when I did it, I knew it. It isn't that hard to tell.

Uncovering this seems to be the role of a philosopher, not the work of a couple of assholes on the internet. — Tom Storm

Whether or not you and I are philosophers, we are acting as philosophers here on the forum. We are trying to hold ourselves to the same standards we hold philosophers to. Little kids playing football are football players. From what I've seen, many philosophers are at least as big assholes as you and I are.

Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time. — Joshs

I don't know what this means. The only time I need to know right from wrong is in some "particular situation."

I don't know what this means. The only time I need to know right from wrong is in some "particular situation." — T Clark

The counterpoint would seem to be that what you "know" as right and wrong might not be what others "know" as right and wrong. That said, most everyone knows right from wrong when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Theft, assault, rape, murder, torture.

From what I've seen, many philosophers are at least as big assholes as you and I are. — T Clark

:rofl: That's funny.

I don't think I've ever done wrong by accident - because I didn't know it was wrong. It's not that I've never done wrong, but when I did it, I knew it. It isn't that hard to tell. — T Clark

Yes, and I agree. I don't 'use' philosophy when I make decisions. I go by intuition, which no doubt is influenced by culture, upbringing and language.

But here's the thing, we are discussing how moral behaviour works and this concept of 'the good' keeps arising. What is it? I am interested in how doing wrong make sense if there is no foundational basis or transcendent source of the good. Seems to me that what @Joshs wrote earlier is accurate - when a philosopher seeks to situate morality some place, it often seems to end up as:

...the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness. — Joshs

Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time.
— Joshs

I don't know what this means. The only time I need to know right from wrong is in some "particular situation." — T Clark

Yes, and each time, in each particular situation, how can you be sure that what makes that situation right or wrong draws from the same rules, criteria and justifications that you depended on the previous time, or 20 years ago?

But here's the thing, we are discussing how moral behaviour works and this concept of 'the good' keeps arising. What is it? I am interested in how doing wrong make sense if there is no foundational basis or transcendent source of the good. — Tom Storm

You and I have been through this before and you don't agree with my formulation - right vs. wrong behavior is a personal decision. Anything else isn't morality at all, it's social control - what society does to keep the skids greased.

how can you be sure that what makes that situation right or wrong draws from the same rules, criteria and justifications as the previous time, or compared with 20 years ago? — Joshs

Why does it matter? Why can't I change my understanding?

Anything else isn't morality at all, it's social control - what society does to keep the skids greased. — T Clark

I'm not talking about a morality as a code of conduct, I'm talking about whether or not right and wrong have any meaning apart from cultural and personal? What do you think of this issue?

If all it is entirely personal, then why would you or I judge others for making bad or wrong discussions or celebrate good actions?

If all it is entirely personal, then why would you or I judge others for making bad or wrong discussions or celebrate good actions? — Tom Storm

We wouldn't. I don't see much value in judging other people, which isn't to say I never do. It does make sense to respond to their behavior - "Hey! Stop that!" or "Thank you."

Yes, and each time, in each particular situation, how can you be sure that what makes that situation right or wrong draws from the same rules, criteria and justifications as the previous time, or compared with 20 years ago? — Joshs

The almost universal agreement about the most significant moral issues I outlined above doesn't change from time to time or culture to culture, as least when it comes to members of what one considers one's own community..

how can you be sure that what makes that situation right or wrong draws from the same rules, criteria and justifications as the previous time, or compared with 20 years ago?
— Joshs

Why does it matter? Why can't I change my understanding? — T Clark

It sounds like we’re in agreement.

It sounds like we’re in agreement. — Joshs

Yay!

The almost universal agreement about the most significant moral issues I outlined above doesn't change from time to time or culture to culture, as least when it comes to members of what one considers one's own community. — Janus

Don’t confuse universal use of labels like rape, murder, theft and genocide with universal agreement on whose actions
deserve these labels. Without such universality the labels are only as useful as the stability of the social configurations within which they are employed.

I would say that most everyone knows very well what theft, assault, rape, murder and torture are, so I'm not seeing the confusion you apparently think is there.

For example, don't conflate the normal condemnation of murder with the practical ethical question as to which deeds deserve the appellation. The point is that if an act is identified as murder it will be almost universally condemned.

It sounds like we’re in agreement. — Joshs

As you noted, we are in agreement, but, you know how it goes when you think of the perfect response after the argument is over. To whit:

The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, — Emerson - Self-Reliance

I would say that most everyone knows very well what theft, assault, rape, murder and torture are — Janus

Try reading some case law... (im jesting, but its very, very clear that the boundaries of all these things are murky and mostly institutional. The 'universally recognized' part would be russian-dolled within everyone's differing outer limits).