The crisis in Morality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you beholden to some external source of morality - why can morality not be our collective agreement on what's appropriate or desirable behaviour?

There may well be, I'd put the same question to them.

But that's only after you've decided that humanity isn't a sufficient source for morality, which you've not explained.  And if you're reliant on a 'god' for your morality, why is it alright for that god to decide that what's moral has changed, but it's not OK for us to do the same?

If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.

I’m not arguing that humanity is a sufficient source of morality.You are and I look forward to your non sentimental justification. As it happens humans are a source of immorality although I’m neither ruling SUFICIENT immorality in or out.

At the moment your moral theory suffers from a lack of moral arbitration with the added problem that you might be talking about something other than morality.

[Outrider]

If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.

It's not malarkey, it's just not pretending that there's a definitive answer, that it's down to us to determine what we think are right and wrong in any given situation.

I’m not arguing that humanity is a sufficient source of morality.

But you are - you're saying that if we collectively have a system of morality that's somehow not enough, that it's "malarkey".

You are and I look forward to your non sentimental justification. As it happens humans are a source of immorality although I’m neither ruling SUFICIENT immorality in or out.

Humanity is the source of human behaviour, including the various judgements of that human behaviour, yes.

At the moment your moral theory suffers from a lack of moral arbitration with the added problem that you might be talking about something other than morality.

It doesn't lack attribution, it's just that you don't appear to like that attribution despite accepting that it's viable somehow.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I Hillside have taken the words Cultural Hegemony........crossed them out.........and with my bestest crayon have written “Morrils” instead.

I'll take that as a "yes" then: after all your lying, insults, prevarication, diversionary tactics and general fucking around you do indeed think “genuine” morality to be some sort of objective property of the universe that certain believers can identify by reference to various “holy” books, but only the ones you happen to think are the real ones. You cannot or will not however even attempt an argument to justify this remarkable assertion such that anyone else should take the claim seriously.

Thought so.

Oh, and "hegemony" is wrong (I've cautioned you before about attempting long words you don't understand - you really should take that on board), but "provisionally formed from a mix of innate response and reasoning" is fine. Just like aesthetics is for example.     

   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

If there is no external point of moral reference then it does then become more of a question of taste in which any supposed moral arbitration claimed is mere malarkey.

First, that’s your basic, common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentium fallacy: “If X, then consequence Y” (Y being something you don’t like the sound of), therefore X must be wrong”.

Second, “taste” is wrong but essentially morality being what we intuit and reason it to be is basically right.

Third, “moral arbitration” is fine at a personal and at societal levels because prevailing moral positions are those that achieve the greatest consensus. The notion that we should instead go to some ancient texts (but only the ones you happen to subscribe to) for a set of moral instructions that are often by moderns standards horrible, that don’t address at all sorts of important moral questions, and that are themselves often internally incoherent or contradictory is bizarre. 

Fourth (as I explained before and you just ignored) the analogy with aesthetics is still a perfectly good one (morality being if not an offshoot of aesthetics then at least a close cousin of it). Intuitively people respond positively and negatively to various images, sounds etc and consider them to be “good or “bad”, and often too they will add reason to support or change these positions. We do these things quite readily without appealing to some notion of universal standards for good/bad art, good/bad music etc so what’s so special about morality that it can’t work the same way?         
 

I’m not arguing that humanity is a sufficient source of morality.

Then you should be.

You are and I look forward to your non sentimental justification. As it happens humans are a source of immorality although I’m neither ruling SUFICIENT immorality in or out.

Gibberish.

At the moment your moral theory suffers from a lack of moral arbitration…

No it doesn’t – see above.

…with the added problem that you might be talking about something other than morality.

Only if we accept your assertion about what “genuine morality” must be, but as we know you’re unable to produce an argument to justify that claim there’s no reason so far at least to take it seriously. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not malarkey, it's just not pretending that there's a definitive answer, that it's down to us to determine what we think are right and wrong in any given situation.

But you are - you're saying that if we collectively have a system of morality that's somehow not enough, that it's "malarkey".

Humanity is the source of human behaviour, including the various judgements of that human behaviour, yes.

It doesn't lack attribution, it's just that you don't appear to like that attribution despite accepting that it's viable somehow.

O.

or it could be there is an actual moral focal point or moral reality.
Offering a viable alternative might be ok if only one of is offering moral theory and you think that if you offer a possibility it blows moral realism away but this is a case where we are both offering a moral theory....but it's hard to find morality or immorality in yours if it's actually foldable in yours.

What it does betray is pretence in holding the default position across the board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

or it could be there is an actual mroral focal point or moral reality.

It “could be” that there are tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri too. How does a "could be" help you?

Offering a viable alternative might be ok…

It is OK because it has the signal advantage of being reason-based and, therefore, plausible.

…if only one of is offering moral theory and you think that if you offer a possibility it blows moral realism away but this is a case where we are both offering a moral theory....but it's hard to find morality or immorality in yours if it's actually foldable in yours.

Have you dropped a tin of alphabet soup and photoshopped the results into a reply or something? What are you even trying to say here?

What it does betray is pretence in holding the default position across the board.

Make that two tins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

First, that’s your basic, common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentium fallacy: “If X, then consequence Y” (Y being something you don’t like the sound of), therefore X must be wrong”.

Second, “taste” is wrong but essentially morality being what we intuit and reason it to be is basically right.

Third, “moral arbitration” is fine at a personal and at societal levels because prevailing moral positions are those that achieve the greatest consensus. The notion that we should instead go to some ancient texts (but only the ones you happen to subscribe to) for a set of moral instructions that are often by moderns standards horrible, that don’t address at all sorts of important moral questions, and that are themselves often internally incoherent or contradictory is bizarre. 

Fourth (as I explained before and you just ignored) the analogy with aesthetics is still a perfectly good one (morality being if not an offshoot of aesthetics then at least a close cousin of it). Intuitively people respond positively and negatively to various images, sounds etc and consider them to be “good or “bad”, and often too they will add reason to support or change these positions. We do these things quite readily without appealing to some notion of universal standards for good/bad art, good/bad music etc so what’s so special about morality that it can’t work the same way?         
 
Then you should be.

Gibberish.

No it doesn’t – see above.

Only if we accept your assertion about what “genuine morality” must be, but as we know you’re unable to produce an argument to justify that claim there’s no reason so far at least to take it seriously.

Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime. If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant. In any case there has to be a lot of let's pretend that in your explanation. You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime. If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant. In any case there has to be a lot of" let's pretend that..." in your explanation. You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.

[Outrider]

Or it could be there is an actual moral focal point or moral reality.

It could be, but the specific entity that you're suggesting has been posited for over 2 millenia and at best hasn't been clear on what that moral reality is.

Offering a viable alternative might be ok if only one of is offering moral theory and you think that if you offer a possibility it blows moral realism away but this is a case where we are both offering a moral theory....but it's hard to find morality or immorality in yours if it's actually foldable in yours.

Pinning your hopes on the unreliable evidence for what appears to be a capricious independent source of moral reality doesn't seem to be a better plan, especially given the track record of morality deployed by those working from that source material.

What it does betray is pretence in holding the default position across the board.

What?  What does what betray?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

It “could be” that there are tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri too. How does a "could be" help you?

It is OK because it has the signal advantage of being reason-based and, therefore, plausible.

Have you dropped a tin of alphabet soup and photoshopped the results into a reply or something? What are you even trying to say here?

Make that two tins.

Thin stuff.

 I understand that to catch anything meaningfully moral in your moral theory scientists will be putting a tank of liquid nitrogen in a deep mine under Essex to detect any interaction at al.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Sigh.....If it's just a question of taste then it is just cultural hegemony which decides what is good and bad making courts and conventions etc a form of cultural pantomime.

I just explained to you why this is wrong. Why have you ignored it?

If it is a form of aesthetics then the term morality becomes redundant.

So you assert, though you’re still unable to offer an argument to justify the claim. Couldn’t you even try to do that just for once? 

In any case there has to be a lot of let's pretend that in your explanation.

What “let’s pretend” do you think there is in a reason-based, plausible explanation for morality?

You wouldn't accept that anywhere else.

I don’t accept it here either – it’s just something else you’ve made up.

Do you have any arguments to make, or are unqualified (and incoherent) assertions all you have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Thin stuff.

But no argument to explain why.

I understand that to catch anything meaningfully moral in your moral theory scientists will be putting a tank of liquid nitrogen in a deep mine under Essex to detect any interaction at al.

Gibberish noted. Still no arguments though.

What’s stopping you?

[Roses]

Vlad appears to be high as a kite today, I wonder what other substances he is taking as well as alcohol?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

He seems to have Od’d on assertion pills. Sadly though his argument pills were lost in the post...