The crisis in Morality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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

Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.

[Nearly Sane]

Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.

This is just introducing more undefined terms and assertions. Even for my very low expectations, you managed to effortlessly limbo dance under them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is just introducing more undefined terms and assertions. Even for my very low expectations, you managed to effortlessly limbo dance under them.

That if you like and even if you don’t like is bollocks.
Any other explanation of morality leaves the term morality redundant. Any explanation that leaves it intact is better than one which makes it redundant.

So there is a moral reality or the whole thing is effectively just arsepull of the type you wouldn’t even dream of engaging with if it was just ordinary reasoning which was involved.

[Stranger]

Our conscience decides namely the faculty which detects the moral landscape. No moral landscape no morality........Morality is a redundant term in any other scenario.

More useless waffle. If we have a faculty that can "detect" a moral landscape, then why do people fundamentally disagree about it? If they do disagree, how do we decide who is right?

You seem to be trying to assert the objective reality of morality but in a totally useless way. Even if objective morality exists, it might as well not exist if we have no reliable way to access it.

[Nearly Sane]

That if you like and even if you don’t like is bollocks.
Any other explanation of morality leaves the term morality redundant. Any explanation that leaves it intact is better than one which makes it redundant.

So there is a moral reality or the whole thing is effectively just arsepull of the type you wouldn’t even dream of engaging with if it was just ordinary reasoning which was involved.

an incoherent explanation is worthless. Your use of 'redundant' here is unexplained and not a normal term in this context so your sentences using it are in no sense coherent.


Your second paragraph is an empty assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we have a faculty that can "detect" a moral landscape, then why do people fundamentally disagree about it? If they do disagree, how do we decide who is right?

Well let's run with with your contention that people fundementally disagree about it and put that up against two arguments used against moral realism. 1) That Humans reach a moral concensus the triumph of which has already been spelt out by Outrider earlier in this thread.
If people fundamentally disagree. How is it possible to reach ANY consensus let alone international law? Secondly the only people who seem to buck consensus on wellbeing, according to Be Rational are 'Outliers' and these people are socio and psychopathic.

Now out of yours or there views I tend to side with them and say there is no fundamental disagreement about what is good or bad on a lot of what the basic commandments or laws should be.

You seem to be trying to assert the objective reality of morality but in a totally useless way. Even if objective morality exists, it might as well not exist if we have no reliable way to access it.

But doubtless you will be crossing your fingers that the subjective morality of people broadly is intersubjective between a majority of actors who aren't fundamentally disagreeing on what is right and wrong.
I think we should and do go thermostatic on morality never seemingly capable of resting on the true moral point to enjoy it but always trying to find it/return to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

an incoherent explanation is worthless. Your use of 'redundant' here is unexplained and not a normal term in this context so your sentences using it are in no sense coherent.


Your second paragraph is an empty assertion.

The term redundant is used to refer to the phrase Moral behaviour as properly understood in say empiricism and naturalism. Since all we can do effectively is observe behaviour and anything like any capacity to detect a moral landscape is rejected then the word moral here is meaningless and a mere label. So in a phrase like moral behaviour the ''moral'' part is unnecessary and therefore redundant because of the sufficiency of the term behaviour.

Since no self respecting materialist, empiricist, naturalist would tolerate any serious mention of 'Beautiful' behaviour or 'classy' behaviour why should we take the term moral behaviour as used by the same people any more seriously and why do they?

[Nearly Sane]

The term redundant is used to refer to the phrase Moral behaviour as properly understood in say empiricism and naturalism. Since all we can do effectively is observe behaviour and anything like any capacity to detect a moral landscape is rejected then the word moral here is meaningless and a mere label. So in a phrase like moral behaviour the ''moral'' part is unnecessary and therefore redundant because of the sufficiency of the term behaviour.

Since no self respecting materialist, empiricist, naturalist would tolerate any serious mention of 'Beautiful' behaviour or 'classy' behaviour why should we take the term moral behaviour as used by the same people any more seriously and why do they?

Irrelevant, empty, sense free ramblings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Well let's run with with your contention that people fundementally disagree about it and put that up against two arguments used against moral realism. 1) That Humans reach a moral concensus the triumph of which has already been spelt out by Outrider earlier in this thread.
If people fundamentally disagree. How is it possible to reach ANY consensus let alone international law? Secondly the only people who seem to buck consensus on wellbeing, according to Be Rational are 'Outliers' and these people are socio and psychopathic.

Now out of yours or there views I tend to side with them and say there is no fundamental disagreement about what is good or bad on a lot of what the basic commandments or laws should be.

Even by your abysmal standards this is incoherent nonsense. The point is that people are able fundamentally to disagree about moral questions – unlike actual universal properties like gravity when you don’t get to decide for yourself whether they apply to you.

Why and how majorities often cohere around various moral precepts – that murder is morally wrong for example – is a second order issue, readily explained nonetheless by the personal and societal advantages of such determinations.

Most people will cohere around harmonious music being better than discordant music, around sunsets being more visually pleasing than images of road accidents. Does this mean that there must be aesthetic realism too, an objective aesthetic “landscape” that’s universally “out there” that we should identify, or does it mean instead that we respond with a mix of intuition and reasoning to moral questions just as we do to aesthetic ones?

From an admittedly crowded field of wrong arguments, WLC’s effort to claim objective morality that you’re aping here seems to me to be the most obviously stupid of all.       

But doubtless you will be crossing your fingers that the subjective morality of people broadly is intersubjective between a majority of actors who aren't fundamentally disagreeing on what is right and wrong.

As that’s what we observe in the real world – people vote for other people who broadly at least reflect their moral outlooks, and those people in turn tend to enact laws that reflect those outlooks – why the need to cross your fingers?

I think we should and do go thermostatic on morality never seemingly capable of resting on the true moral point to enjoy it but always trying to find it/return to it.

Elephant bananas transmogrify hypnotically.

Hey, it’s funs this random word selection! OK, your turn again… 

[Gordon]

I think we should and do go thermostatic on morality never seemingly capable of resting on the true moral point to enjoy it but always trying to find it/return to it.

Since we're going all 'thermostatic', Vlad, I think you should turn down the radiator: on its current setting it's clearly addling your thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Even by your abysmal standards this is incoherent nonsense. The point is that people are able fundamentally to disagree about moral questions

Only in fantasy Hillside if the word moral is effectively a redundant word in the phrase 'moral question' because if  ''moral'' is what you wanna make it anyway (which is what you are about to argue), then they are not actually disagreeing on moral questions........So anything you might have to say isn't now worth the trouble.

Have a nice day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant, empty, sense free ramblings.

How can it be irrelevant when apparently anything is relevant as far as morality goes. Anything less than moral reality and the word morality is fucking irrelevant, sense free and fucking empty for goodness sake.

Except of course for viewers in Scotland.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Only in fantasy Hillside if the word moral is effectively a redundant word in the phrase 'moral question' because if  ''moral'' is what you wanna make it anyway (which is what you are about to argue), then they are not actually disagreeing on moral questions........So anything you might have to say isn't now worth the trouble.

Have a nice day.

So much wrongness crammed in to so few words.

1. Nothing about morality being human-made makes it “redundant”. Why would it?

2. Moral opinions aren’t just what people “want to make” them. They’re a mix of intuition – seeing a child beaten instinctively just feels wrong to most people – and reasoning, generally about more nuanced moral questions when there are pros and cons to be weighed up.
 
3. Yes they are disagreeing on moral questions. A moral question doesn’t cease to be a moral question because it isn’t aligned to your concept of what a moral question should be. 

4. Yes it is “worth the trouble” if you bother just this one to engage honestly with it…

…oh, hang on though. What am I thinking.

5. You’re trying an argumentum ad consequentium - one of the various fallacies on which you rely. 

6. If you think that moral question can’t be moral questions without a universal set of morals how can aesthetic questions about music or art be aesthetic questions without a universal set of rules for good and bad music/art?

Apart from all that though…

[Nearly Sane]

How can it be irrelevant when apparently anything is relevant as far as morality goes. Anything less than moral reality and the word morality is fucking irrelevant, sense free and fucking empty for goodness sake.

Except of course for viewers in Scotland.

Empty vacuous assertion with a begging the question fallacy. Not even amounting to drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

So much wrongness crammed in to so few words.

1. Nothing about morality being human-made makes it “redundant”. Why would it?

2. Moral opinions aren’t just what people “want to make” them. They’re a mix of intuition – seeing a child beaten instinctively just feels wrong to most people – and reasoning, generally about more nuanced moral questions when there are pros and cons to be weighed up.
 
3. Yes they are disagreeing on moral questions. A moral question doesn’t cease to be a moral question because it isn’t aligned to your concept of what a moral question should be. 

4. Yes it is “worth the trouble” if you bother just this one to engage honestly with it…

…oh, hang on though. What am I thinking.

5. You’re trying an argumentum ad consequentium - one of the various fallacies on which you rely. 

6. If you think that moral question can’t be moral questions without a universal set of morals how can aesthetic questions about music or art be aesthetic questions without a universal set of rules for good and bad music/art?

Apart from all that though…

Perce,

Even by your abysmal standards this is incoherent nonsense. The point is that people are able fundamentally to disagree about moral questions – unlike actual universal properties like gravity when you don’t get to decide for yourself whether they apply to you.

Why and how majorities often cohere around various moral precepts – that murder is morally wrong for example – is a second order issue, readily explained nonetheless by the personal and societal advantages of such determinations.

Most people will cohere around harmonious music being better than discordant music, around sunsets being more visually pleasing than images of road accidents. Does this mean that there must be aesthetic realism too, an objective aesthetic “landscape” that’s universally “out there” that we should identify, or does it mean instead that we respond with a mix of intuition and reasoning to moral questions just as we do to aesthetic ones?

From an admittedly crowded field of wrong arguments, WLC’s effort to claim objective morality that you’re aping here seems to me to be the most obviously stupid of all.       

As that’s what we observe in the real world – people vote for other people who broadly at least reflect their moral outlooks, and those people in turn tend to enact laws that reflect those outlooks – why the need to cross your fingers?

Elephant bananas transmogrify hypnotically.

Hey, it’s funs this random word selection! OK, your turn again…

If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real then the word moral becomes redundant. Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant. That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are saying well actually morality isn't really real then the word moral becomes redundant. Any subsequent piece containing the word moral is redundant. That is why I gave your last post.....The last post.

Which make 'manners' 'real'.  Again your use of redundant here shows that you have no knowledge or understanding.

[BeRational]

Shouldn’t morality come before well being.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.

Do you approve of slavery?
The bible does.
If you don't what morality did you use to ignore the slavery passages in the  bible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you approve of slavery?
The bible does.
If you don't what morality did you use to ignore the slavery passages in the  bible?

The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.

Slavery in the Roman empire was an awful experience and an atrocious abuse occurred. The Romans are generally forgiven for slavery because of their culture  but not it seems any Christian romans who had slaves.

What should be remembered is that slaves too became Christian in great numbers so the impression that Christianity was a slavers religion is false.

In fact when an equally particularly horrible form of slavery sprang up in the americas. Black slaves started there own vibrant iteraton of christianity.

How do you know I ignore the slavery passages in the bible?

Why would you say slavery is wrong?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you approve of slavery?

No, do you?

[Nearly Sane]

The epistles show Christians were already in the business of freeing slaves when becoming christians which was probably uncommon in the wider Roman community. Christians were bound to treat people better.

Slavery in the Roman empire was an awful experience and an atrocious abuse occurred. The Romans are generally forgiven for slavery because of their culture  but not it seems any Christian romans who had slaves.

What should be remembered is that slaves too became Christian in great numbers so the impression that Christianity was a slavers religion is false.

In fact when an equally particularly horrible form of slavery sprang up in the americas. Black slaves started there own vibrant iteraton of christianity.

How do you know I ignore the slavery passages in the bible?

Why would you say slavery is wrong?

 

Why are you lying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you lying?

What do you find to be untrue?

[Nearly Sane]

What do you find to be untrue?

Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your denial of the bible. The how hard you can beat a slave for example. If they survive a week you support that. You worship that.

I neither deny it’s in the bible nor am I compelled to support it and also I don’t support it.

Why do you think it’s wrong if you do not have any system of moral arbitration?

[Nearly Sane]

I neither deny it’s in the bible nor am I compelled to support it and also I don’t support it.

Why do you think it’s wrong if you do not have any system of moral arbitration?

so you subjectively cherry pick.
And subjectivity.

Show moral realism.









I'll wait.....







.....




....



.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so you subjectively cherry pick.
And subjectivity.

Show moral realism.

You are trying hard to get me to see that slavery is wrong. Either you are pulling that out of your arse or you are making moral equations which pitch out the answer slavery is wrong.

Why do you think slavery is wrong?












I'll wait.....







.....




....



.....
[/quote]