The crisis in Morality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Its  ot vague.
Where  do you get your morality from.
Dont tell me the bible!

Presumably if we have any of the good stuff we all get it from the same place.
Talk a bit about well-being........what Do you mean?

[BeRational]

Presumably if we have any of the good stuff we all get it from the same place.
Talk a bit about well-being........what Do you mean?

If you do  not use well being where do you get your morality  from.

It cannot be the  bible and I think I can demonstrate that, so where does your morality come from?

[SteveH]

What is morality there to promote if not happiness? HOW ABOUT ITSELF?

That is complete and utter nonsense, even by your standards. Morality refers beyond itself, or it is nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is complete and utter nonsense, even by your standards. Morality refers beyond itself, or it is nothing.

It may refer beyond itself but to what and where and then if those thing it refers to actually make it a redundant term, then what? I’m not saying your wrong, I just want a couple of examples. It seems to me that well-being and happiness could be pursued themselves.

Another thing is, shouldn’t it be things referring to morality, not the other way around?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you do  not use well being where do you get your morality  from.

Shouldn’t morality come before well being.

It cannot be the  bible and I think I can demonstrate that, so where does your morality come from?

It might be partly the Bible and in a way extra to the morality all westerners get from the bible by dint of cultural heritage. But yes, If you think it does not please demonstrate. I think I get morality by way of it being a conduit from the real source.

[Nearly Sane]

Wonders to self has Vlad's answered Floo's question in the second post with a coherent answer. Reads thread. Sees he has not. Is unsurprised.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wonders to self has Vlad's answered Floo's question in the second post with a coherent answer. Reads thread. Sees he has not. Is unsurprised.

Reply 3

[Nearly Sane]

Reply 3

Fails to be a coherent answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fails to be a coherent answer.

In a plethora of answers to morality that effectively make the term morality redundant you have to alight on my answer.

[Nearly Sane]

In a plethora of answers to morality that effectively make the term morality redundant you have to alight on my answer.

Apart from the whataboutery here, any other answers not being good make no difference to the lack of coherence of your answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from the whataboutery here, any other answers not being good make no difference to the lack of coherence of your answer.

Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?

[Nearly Sane]

Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?

So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?

Yes.

[Stranger]

Morality is what we ought to do. What is incoherent about that?

That's very, very silly, even for you...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's very, very silly, even for you...

What is silly about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So ought I to have rolls or sliced bread for breakfast?

If there is not an ought not attached to this then yes ....either or both.

[Stranger]

What is silly about it?

It's a pointless, useless, and circular.

How do we decide what we ought to do?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a pointless, useless, and circular.

How do we decide what we ought to do?

Ah so it IS what we ought to do.
How do we decide? Moral reasoning.

[Stranger]

Ah so it IS what we ought to do.
How do we decide? Moral reasoning.

What are you asking me for? You're the one who said you had an answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you asking me for? You're the one who said you had an answer.

I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.

[Stranger]

I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.

Okay, misread that. So morality is what we ought to do and we decide what we ought to do using "moral reasoning", so it's circular, as I said.

You still haven't told us anything useful or coherent about morality, let alone provided an answer.

[Nearly Sane]

If there is not an ought not attached to this then yes ....either or both.

So how is it decided whether an 'ought' is attached? That's where your answer was not coherent.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m just recapping your question then answering. We decide using moral reasoning.

Can you explain what you think 'moral reasoning' is, and how it works? A worked example would be good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, misread that. So morality is what we ought to do and we decide what we ought to do using "moral reasoning", so it's circular, as I said.

You still haven't told us anything useful or coherent about morality, let alone provided an answer.

Neither has any body else. I on the other hand have retained the idea of morality by introducing lights and ought nots. That’s why nearly Sane came unstuck with his should I have toast or rolls. Since there is no should not it is not a moral issue.

Moral reasoning is not just reasoning but reason which is based on a moral reality in which we all move. So if we are incompetent at it it is Moral incompetence rather than just incompetence. So the most erudite, gifted, charismatic, intelligent of us could also be the most morally incompetent.

[Nearly Sane]

Neither has any body else. I on the other hand have retained the idea of morality by introducing lights and ought nots. That’s why nearly Sane came unstuck with his should I have toast or rolls. Since there is no should not it is not a moral issue.

Moral reasoning is not just reasoning but reason which is based on a moral reality in which we all move. So if we are incompetent at it it is Moral incompetence rather than just incompetence. So the most erudite, gifted, charismatic, intelligent of us could also be the most morally incompetent.

You do know you actually need to demonstrate if someone has 'come unstuck' rather than just assert it, don't you? I did ask how you determine what a moral question is but so far no answer. So you can do it in reply. Or rather it is possible for someone to attempt to do so. You mebbes not so much.