Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

They still let me learn something about the person I talk to.

What significant understanding is gained if all you're doing is speaking of personal preferences?

The experience of acting in accordance with "moral" feelings, is different than eating a good ice cream. As such I still find it useful to talk about moral feelings.

In what way? If it is all just a matter of taste, what is the operational difference? What distinguishes a moral feeling from a non-moral one? What is the key feature of a moral feeling, if it isn't a matter of being in agreement with an actual right or wrong?

 

[partinobodycular]

Again, your argument depends on the prescriptive being derived through reasoning. But it's not, it's arrived at through revelation.

Ah well, it's revelation, that changes everything.

 

[Fervent]

Ah well, it's revelation, that changes everything.

When the problem is an inability to bootstrap our way to prescription, relying on an external source isn't a violation. The philosophical problem reveals the need for such a source. So yeah, revelation changes the equation.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What significant understanding is gained if all you're doing is speaking of personal preferences?

How they feel about thieves, for example. What they feel about giving to the poor, an other example. That is the significant understanding that can be gained. Under which circumstances do they find killing acceptable, and so on.

In what way? If it is all just a matter of taste, what is the operational difference? What distinguishes a moral feeling from a non-moral one? What is the key feature of a moral feeling, if it isn't a matter of being in agreement with an actual right or wrong?

How it feels. Listening to good music gives one type of satisfaction, eating good food another and seeing some act moral or if I act after my moral feelings a third.

 

[Fervent]

How they feel about thieves, for example. What they feel about giving to the poor, an other example. That is the significant understanding that can be gained. Under which circumstances do they find killing acceptable, and so on.

and why should any of that matter?

How it feels. Listening to good music gives one type of satisfaction, eating good food another and seeing some act moral or if I act after my moral feelings a third.

That doesn't answer my question, it's just a vacuous statement without any clear indication of why a 'moral" feeling is "moral"

 

[Stopped_lurking]

and why should any of that matter?

Then I have learnt something about them, I find it nice to know people's views. If you don't care, that is fine too.

That doesn't answer my question, it's just a vacuous statement without any clear indication of why a 'moral" feeling is "moral"

Sorry, that is how it presents to me. How is this different from any other moral view? I find your acceptance of virtue ethics as meaningful arbitrary.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A jeweler need not study fakes in order to know they're false, only familiarize himself with the real thing.

What "fakes" and "real thing"? Who is the "jewler"?

It's not a lack of comprehension on my end, it's your failure to understand me and what it is I am saying.

Ich verstehe nicht. Non parlo absolutist presuppositions.

Just going by your statements about how much you know and other marks of pride you display.

When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose

 

[Fervent]

Then I have learnt something about them, I find it nice to know people's views. If you don't care, that is fine too.

Learning about others is all well and good, but if that's all there is to it then how is it different from learning their favorite musical genre or their favorite smell?

Sorry, that is how it presents to me. How is this different from any other moral view? I find your acceptance of virtue ethics as meaningful arbitrary.

There's an arbitrary element to it, but your view seems to be internally inconsistent not simply arbitrary.

 

[Fervent]

What "fakes" and "real thing"? Who is the "jewler"?

The fakes are the competing viewpoints you think I should countenance. in this analogy, I'm the jeweler and the real thing is the Truth.

Ich verstehe nicht. Non parlo absolutist presuppositions.

No presuppositions, conclusions.

When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose

well, at least we're in agreement that you have nothing of value.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Learning about others is all well and good, but if that's all there is to it then how is it different from learning their favorite musical genre or their favorite smell?

You learn their moral views, if you learn their favorite musical genre you learn about their musical tastes. The subject is different, that difference is enough.

There's an arbitrary element to it, but your view seems to be internally inconsistent not simply arbitrary.

Ok? I don't think so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The fakes are the competing viewpoints you think I should countenance. in this analogy, I'm the jeweler and the real thing is the Truth.

Most people can at least contemplate the positions of others. Back in the day it was not hard for me to consider that other people believed in different gods than, even if I thought they were wrong. It is no wonder you had such problems with the definition of empathy. The understanding or even willingness to contemplate the positions of others is lacking.

No presuppositions, conclusions.

You presume that your religion is correct and conclude that your god is the source of absolute morality.

well, at least we're in agreement that you have nothing of value.

You must be fun at parties. Start many fist fights?

 

[Fervent]

You learn their moral views, if you learn their favorite musical genre you learn about their musical tastes. The subject is different, that difference is enough.

Not really, because all you're supposedly learning is preferences.

Ok? I don't think so.

Your view entails that there is no right or wrong, only opinions. It's inconsistent because you're claiming that there are things that are in some sense right and wrong, but then holding them to be equivalent with musical preferences or aesthetic standards.

 

[Fervent]

Most people can at least contemplate the positions of others. Back in the day it was not hard for me to consider that other people believed in different gods than, even if I thought they were wrong. It is no wonder you had such problems with the definition of empathy. The understanding or even willingness to contemplate the positions of others is lacking.

My dismissal of other views is not from some inability, I am well aware that other views exist. But there's no point in countenancing them, especially not when they're being wielded as rhetorical cudgels by atheists.

You presume that your religion is correct and conclude that your god is the source of absolute morality.

My conviction that my religion is correct is not a presumption, it's the sum total of my experience, deductive inferences, and abductive inferences.

You must be fun at parties. Start many fist fights?

You're the one who stepped up to me with all your hot air.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Not really, because all you're supposedly learning is preferences.

That is good enough. I learn their preferences, which is what I want.

Your view entails that there is no right or wrong, only opinions. It's inconsistent because you're claiming that there are things that are in some sense right and wrong, but then holding them to be equivalent with musical preferences or aesthetic standards.

i only talk about my feelings with regard to morality. Have I used right and wrong outside of that in what you feel is a moral sense?

 

[Fervent]

That is good enough. I learn their preferences, which is what I want.

ok

i only talk about my feelings with regard to morality. Have I used right and wrong outside of that in what you feel is a moral sense?

The issue is, your feelings must not relate to anything actual so how can you hold that they are right or wrong in any sense? and if you don't feel they relate to right or wrong, in what sense are they moral?

 

[partinobodycular]

When the problem is an inability to bootstrap our way to prescription, relying on an external source isn't a violation. The philosophical problem reveals the need for such a source. So yeah, revelation changes the equation.

So explain to me how @Brdaskii's emotional/reasoned morality isn't simply revelation unrecognized as such. It seems to me that you have no means of differentiating between the two. What you call revelation and what @Bradskii calls reasoning may be born from the same source. Thus legitimizing his claims about morality, at least using the reasoning as stated in the above quote.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

ok

The issue is, your feelings must not relate to anything actual so how can you hold that they are right or wrong in any sense? and if you don't feel they relate to right or wrong, in what sense are they moral?

It feels like you have a different view of what makes something moral. They are only right or wrong in so far that they inspire a good or bad moral feeling. Which is a specific feeling I get when pondering ought-questions about the treatment of others. I'm still trying to put words to it, this has happened completely naturally for me all my life.

 

[Fervent]

So explain to me how @Brdaskii's emotional/reasoned morality isn't simply revelation unrecognized as such. It seems to me that you have no means of differentiating between the two. What you call revelation and what @Bradskii calls reasoning may be born from the same source. Thus legitimizing his claims about morality, at least using the reasoning as stated in the above quote.

Seems your hypothetical is attempting to make claims not made, so there's not much point in addressing them. You assume that i have no test for revelation, without inquiring whether or not I do and what that test may be.

 

[Fervent]

It feels like you have a different view of what makes something moral. They are only right or wrong in so far that they inspire a good or bad moral feeling. Which is a specific feeling I get when pondering ought-questions about the treatment of others. I'm still trying to put words to it, this has happened completely naturally for me all my life.

Yeah, I require at least internal consistency. Your moral feelings are either void of moral content because you don't consider them to truly be wrong or right, or you have an inconsistency by ascribing moral content you don't actually believe is right or wrong in any real sense of the word.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Your moral feelings are either void of moral content because you don't consider them to truly be wrong or right.

What does truly mean here? Because the feelings are true and they define wrong or right for me.