The source of moral obligation

[Jeremy E Walker]

What is my standard for diagnosing Jeremy's psychopathy? My standard comes from clinical psychology and psychiatry. Clinical psychology does not provide a standard for the "perfect" or "ideal" human being; it does, however, identify certain traits and behaviours that are both abnormal and maladaptive.

Clinical psychologist presuppose that there are normal traits and behaviours that humans possess and exhibit. But what makes these particular traits normal?

What grounds or basis do they have for saying that trait x is normal and trait y is abnormal?

What are they comparing trait x and y to to say that x is normal and y is abnormal?

It seems to me that you are at a loss as to justify your starting point. You realize that you have to have a standard to appeal to to adjudicate between traits if you label someone as abnormal, but what is the standard?

And how am I obligated to conform to it?

This you have still yet to answer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is that an opinion, or a truth claim?

I feel confident it can stand as a truth claim. The various opinions on this thread alone can stand as evidence. I've never seen morality presented as anything more than opinion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Clinical psychologist presuppose that there are normal traits and behaviours that humans possess and exhibit. But what makes these particular traits normal?

What grounds or basis do they have for saying that trait x is normal and trait y is abnormal?

What are they comparing trait x and y to to say that x is normal and y is abnormal?

Statistical frequency is a good start. The traits Jeremy exhibits are abnormal because they are far off in the tail of the distribution for those traits. However, frequency alone does not define psychopathology. Left-handedness is less frequent than right-handedness, for example, but being left-handed is not pathological. Thus, in addition to frequency, the maladaptiveness of the traits is considered. There are other factors to consider in characterising 'abnormal' behaviours and traits, but I won't go into them here.

It seems to me that you are at a loss as to justify your starting point. You realize that you have to have a standard to appeal to to adjudicate between traits if you label someone as abnormal, but what is the standard?

I already told you what the standard is. I even briefly described it to you. You responded to the post in which I articulated the standard with "Where's the standard?"

And how am I obligated to conform to it?

What do you mean? You can deny the standards for diagnosing psychopathy if you choose to do so. But since you apparently have no relevant expertise, no one has to take your denial seriously.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I feel confident it can stand as a truth claim. The various opinions on this thread alone can stand as evidence. I've never seen morality presented as anything more than opinion.

This argument is self-refuting.

You claim that morality is nothing more than opinion because there is no unanimity about what morality is. Your proposition fails to live up to its own standard for there is no unanimity regarding your statement that morality is nothing more than opinion.

Thanks for trying.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This argument is self-refuting.

You claim that morality is nothing more than opinion because there is no unanimity about what morality is. Your proposition fails to live up to its own standard for there is no unanimity regarding your statement that morality is nothing more than opinion.

Thanks for trying.

Lol your refute is self-refuting

Read this sentence...

"You claim that morality is nothing more than opinion because there is no unanimity about what morality is."

Then, quite hilariously, you said this...

" Your proposition fails to live up to its own standard for there is no unanimity regarding your statement that morality is nothing more than opinion."

It's literally as if you forgot what you wrote in the first sentence by the time you wrote the second lol. In other words...

If my claim is that everyone has differing moral opinions...the fact that everyone has differing moral opinions proves my statement. It doesn't refute it.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Statistical frequency is a good start. The traits Jeremy exhibits are abnormal because they are far off in the tail of the distribution for those traits. However, frequency alone does not define psychopathology. Left-handedness is less frequent than right-handedness, for example, but being left-handed is not pathological. Thus, in addition to frequency, the maladaptiveness of the traits is considered. There are other factors to consider in characterising 'abnormal' behaviours and traits, but I won't go into them here.

All you have done is redefine abnormal to mean infrequent and normal to be frequent.

Jeremy may indeed exhibit traits that are observed less frequently in other homo sapiens.

What grounds do you have for claiming these particular traits need to be fixed or corrected.

What standard, what model, what ideal is it that you are comparing these infrequently observed traits Jeremy exhibits to?

You spoke of maladaptive behaviour. That word refers to behaviors that inhibit a person's ability to adjust to particular situations.

What grounds do you have for saying trait x is maladaptive and trait y is not?

All of these judgments are dependent upon certain presuppositions about what should be or what ought to be.

What grounds these presuppositions? What is their basis?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Lol your refute is self-refuting

Read this sentence...

"You claim that morality is nothing more than opinion because there is no unanimity about what morality is."

Then, quite hilariously, you said this...

" Your proposition fails to live up to its own standard for there is no unanimity regarding your statement that morality is nothing more than opinion."

It's literally as if you forgot what you wrote in the first sentence by the time you wrote the second lol. In other words...

If my claim is that everyone has differing moral opinions...the fact that everyone has differing moral opinions proves my statement. It doesn't refute it.

Thanks for playing.

It is self refuting because you gave this as your reason or premise as to why morality is nothing more than opinion. I will quote you:

"The various opinions on this thread alone can stand as evidence."

You appealed to there being various opinions about morality as the evidence that morality is nothing more than opinion. If you want to be consistent, you have to apply that to the very thing you claim is true. If you do, it leaves you with a self-refuting claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All you have done is redefine abnormal to mean infrequent and normal to be frequent.

No, I've done quite a bit more than that, as is evident from my post.

Jeremy may indeed exhibit traits that are observed less frequently in other homo sapiens.

What grounds do you have for claiming these particular traits need to be fixed or corrected.

What standard, what model, what ideal is it that you are comparing these infrequently observed traits Jeremy exhibits to?

I've already answered this question. Refer to my previous posts.

You spoke of maladaptive behaviour. That word refers to behaviors that inhibit a person's ability to adjust to particular situations.

What grounds do you have for saying trait x is maladaptive and trait y is not?

I also addressed this with an example in one of my previous posts. You did it read it before clicking 'Reply,' right?

All of these judgments are dependent upon certain presuppositions about what should be or what ought to be.

What grounds these presuppositions? What is their basis?

This is slightly inaccurate, but perhaps due to sloppy wording. These judgments are based on what is; that is, there is a normative level against which Jeremy's behaviours can be compared to determine whether his behaviours are abnormal. We develop expectations based on the normative data and then ask whether Jeremy's behaviour is commensurate with those expectations. I'm oversimplifying of course, but only so as to correct your misunderstanding about how 'abnormal' is defined. It's not "presupposed" in the way you think it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is self refuting because you gave this as your reason or premise as to why morality is nothing more than opinion. I will quote you:

"The various opinions on this thread alone can stand as evidence."

You appealed to there being various opinions about morality as the evidence that morality is nothing more than opinion. If you want to be consistent, you have to apply that to the very thing you claim is true. If you do, it leaves you with a self-refuting claim.

What? No. I don't agree with her claim but even so I can see that your characterisation of it here is mistaken. Since when is a meta-ethical claim subject to itself? She stated that moral claims are opinions. This is a meta-ethical (descriptive) position, not an ethical (perspective) one.

 

[bhsmte]

Clinical psychologist presuppose that there are normal traits and behaviours that humans possess and exhibit. But what makes these particular traits normal?

What grounds or basis do they have for saying that trait x is normal and trait y is abnormal?

What are they comparing trait x and y to to say that x is normal and y is abnormal?

It seems to me that you are at a loss as to justify your starting point. You realize that you have to have a standard to appeal to to adjudicate between traits if you label someone as abnormal, but what is the standard?

And how am I obligated to conform to it?

This you have still yet to answer.

Google how psychologists diagnose clinical psychopathy and you will have your answer.

 

[Conscious Z]

Could someone please explain to me how it is relevant whether Jeremy is psychopathic? Even if he were psychopathic, meaning the biological structure of his brain does not conform with that of a healthy, ideal brain, how does that answer the question of what the origin of moral obligations is? It seems to me that this entire line of thought is essentially an appeal to belief in disguise; that is, it's attempting to say "See, your moral thoughts are not like those of others because your brain is defective." Even if true, it doesn't answer the question of from where moral obligations arise.

Surely no one is suggesting that the source of moral obligations is popular thought about morality....?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Could someone please explain to me how it is relevant whether Jeremy is psychopathic? Even if he were psychopathic, meaning the biological structure of his brain does not conform with that of a healthy, ideal brain, how does that answer the question of what the origin of moral obligations is? It seems to me that this entire line of thought is essentially an appeal to belief in disguise; that is, it's attempting to say "See, your moral thoughts are not like those of others because your brain is defective." Even if true, it doesn't answer the question of from where moral obligations arise.

Surely no one is suggesting that the source of moral obligations is popular thought about morality....?

For some reason Jeremy has decided to introduce this character, "Jeremy," who is a psychopath. Whether this case study proves instructive or not in answering that question remains to be seen. I think the case shows that developing a moral sense depends on having a certain combination of traits, without which one will struggle to understand what it even means to be morally obligated.

 

[JGG]

Could someone please explain to me how it is relevant whether Jeremy is psychopathic? Even if he were psychopathic, meaning the biological structure of his brain does not conform with that of a healthy, ideal brain, how does that answer the question of what the origin of moral obligations is? It seems to me that this entire line of thought is essentially an appeal to belief in disguise; that is, it's attempting to say "See, your moral thoughts are not like those of others because your brain is defective." Even if true, it doesn't answer the question of from where moral obligations arise.

Surely no one is suggesting that the source of moral obligations is popular thought about morality....?

He's not necessarily a psychopath, but is necessarily a sociopath. His behaviours deviate from the norm, he defies social norms, his behavior is anti-social, and he does not show signs of empathy. It doesn't necessarily stand that his behavior is due to a defective brain.

 

[Conscious Z]

He's not necessarily a psychopath, but is necessarily a sociopath. His behaviours deviate from the norm, he defies social norms, his behavior is anti-social, and he does not show signs of empathy. It doesn't necessarily stand that his behavior is due to a defective brain.

My question was why is any of that relevant to the issue of the origins of moral obligations?

 

[JGG]

My question was why is any of that relevant to the issue of the origins of moral obligations?

Ah. I don't think we're discussing that anymore. I think the prominent concern at the moment is what the definition of "is" is.

 

[durangodawood]

....Surely no one is suggesting that the source of moral obligations is popular thought about morality....?

Why not?

Social conditioning seems sufficient to explain it. Even IF there might be more at work, like hard wired "instinct" or similar,

 

[Conscious Z]

Why not?

Social conditioning seems sufficient to explain it. Even IF there might be more at work, like hard wired "instinct" or similar,

That might serve as a historical explanation for how it arose, but it wouldn't serve as a proper justification....which is what I took the OP to be asking. I didn't think by "origins" he literally meant history, but rather justification.

 

[Conscious Z]

Ah. I don't think we're discussing that anymore. I think the prominent concern at the moment is what the definition of "is" is.

Ha, well, it wouldn't be a proper philosophical discussion without that....

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is self refuting because you gave this as your reason or premise as to why morality is nothing more than opinion. I will quote you:

"The various opinions on this thread alone can stand as evidence."

You appealed to there being various opinions about morality as the evidence that morality is nothing more than opinion. If you want to be consistent, you have to apply that to the very thing you claim is true. If you do, it leaves you with a self-refuting claim.

It is applied to my statement.

The various statements regarding morality on this thread are opinions because they cannot substantiate their opinions with evidence.

My statement that their statements are opinions has evidence.... see the sentence above.

Im applying the exact same standard to my statement as I am their and yours... and that standard is evidence.

 

[Freodin]

And how am I obligated to conform to it?

This you have still yet to answer.

You haven't answered this question as well.

Is there a law that you have to follow the law? How are you obliged to follow it?