The source of moral obligation

[GrowingSmaller]

The source of moral obligations is conscious life with interests (things can be better or worse for it experientially), having insight into this, and having an power over it in some way. Starting with oneself.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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.

LOL,

I agree that people have different opinions about what morality is.

This is evidenced by the various opinions seen here. This is called descriptive moral relativism and is uncontroversial.

You took the fact that there are different opinions about what morality is and concluded that that is all morality is.

Do you not see the fallacy in that reasoning? You take the fact that there are indeed differences of opinion as to what is moral, and from that fact, made a meta-ethical claim i.e. that objective moral values and duties do not exist. But a thing's existence (ontology) is wholly independent of whether or not people agree about the nature of said thing.

To give you an example, there are differences of opinion when it comes to the nature of quantum mechanics. There are at least eleven different views about the nature of quantum mechanics. If we were to apply your reasoning here, we would have to admit that there is in fact, no objective truth at all about the nature of quantum mechanics!

In a classroom full of people a teacher could hand out one math equation to the students and get back twenty different answers. The fact that there is disagreement about the answer does not give us justification for saying there is no right answer!

So your reasoning is a text book example of a non-sequitur.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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.

Right.

It is like saying Jeremy is left-handed. This trait is abnormal because most people are right-handed.

You are just describing stuff here.

You are telling what is, not what ought to be. This is what Conscious Z is trying to tell everyone here. It seems only he gets it.

***Watch out Conscious Z, next thing you know, they will be calling you my sock-puppet!***

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.

Bingo. All you have done is tell me that you look at certain traits and say that x y and z traits that Jeremy exhibits are not observed that much in most people.

It goes again back to the left hand, right hand thing.

Most people are right handed, left handed people could be labeled as abnormal in the sense they have a trait that appears less frequently.

I can delightfully agree with everything you wrote.

You still have not answered the question I am asking.

What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought to be empathetic and remorseful as opposed to apathetic and callous?


The only thing I can see is that you might be hinting that Jeremy should be empathetic and remorseful because most people are empathetic and remorseful.

But why should he be empathetic just because most other homo sapiens are?

That is akin to saying left-handed or ambidextrous people should learn to use only their right-hand because most people are right handed!

Is that not prima facie absurd?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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

I am not concerned with how they diagnose psychopathy. I know how they do.

What I am concerned with is their and your grounds or basis for saying that a homo sapien should possess trait x and if they do not they need treatment.

What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to be empathetic?

Why ought people be loving? Why ought people be kind?

 

[quatona]

You still have not answered the question I am asking.

What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought to be empathetic and remorseful as opposed to apathetic and callous?


The only thing I can see is that you might be hinting that Jeremy should be empathetic and remorseful because most people are empathetic and remorseful.

But why should he be empathetic just because most other homo sapiens are?

That is akin to saying left-handed or ambidextrous people should learn to use only their right-hand because most people are right handed!

Is that not prima facie absurd?

(emphasis added)
It´s entertaining to see how you, Walker, the guy who intitially came here to propagate moral objectivism and and moral realism, are now emphatically deconstructing these ideas.
You do that by introducing an infinite regress tactic: Whenever your "Why should [X]?" questions are answered [Y], you move to the next meta-level and ask "And why should he [/Y]" and so forth. You are mingling morality, meta-morality, meta-metamorality etc. (Not exactly proper philosophy, but I guess you will ask me: "On what grounds or basis do you demand that I should do proper philosophy?" So, ok.)

I notice that you and your alter ego are not convinced of any presented grounds for demanding that someone should do X. Fine - we needn´t play this infinite regress game any further, once we have learned how it works.

What you don´t seem to realize is that the same tactic can be successfully used to deconstruct your own version of moral objectivism and realism: What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right.

It is like saying Jeremy is left-handed. This trait is abnormal because most people are right-handed.

You are just describing stuff here.

I already preempted this by explicitly addressing it in one of my previous posts, using that exact same example (left-handedness). It seems as though you haven't even bothered to read my posts before hitting 'Reply'.

You are telling what is, not what ought to be. This is what Conscious Z is trying to tell everyone here. It seems only he gets it.

Before, according to you, I was making judgments based on what ought to be, which you took issue with. Now you say that I am making judgements based on what is, which you also take issue with. It appears that in addition to not reading my own posts before replying, you don't even read yours.

Bingo. All you have done is tell me that you look at certain traits and say that x y and z traits that Jeremy exhibits are not observed that much in most people.

It goes again back to the left hand, right hand thing.

Most people are right handed, left handed people could be labeled as abnormal in the sense they have a trait that appears less frequently.

I already addressed this.

I can delightfully agree with everything you wrote.

You still have not answered the question I am asking.

What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought to be empathetic and remorseful as opposed to apathetic and callous?


The only thing I can see is that you might be hinting that Jeremy should be empathetic and remorseful because most people are empathetic and remorseful.

But why should he be empathetic just because most other homo sapiens are?

That is akin to saying left-handed or ambidextrous people should learn to use only their right-hand because most people are right handed!

Is that not prima facie absurd?

If you want to understand why the analogy you just made is not in line with what I've actually said, then refer to my earlier posts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not concerned with how they diagnose psychopathy. I know how they do.

What I am concerned with is their and your grounds or basis for saying that a homo sapien should possess trait x and if they do not they need treatment.

What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to be empathetic?

Why ought people be loving? Why ought people be kind?

Do you behave in the same incredulous manner when a neurologist says that it is abnormal for a member of homo sapiens to not have a cerebellum? "What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to have a cerebellum? Who do these neurologists think they are!"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

(emphasis added)
It´s entertaining to see how you, Walker, the guy who intitially came here to propagate moral objectivism and and moral realism, are now emphatically deconstructing these ideas.
You do that by introducing an infinite regress tactic: Whenever your "Why should [X]?" questions are answered [Y], you move to the next meta-level and ask "And why should he [/Y]" and so forth. You are mingling morality, meta-morality, meta-metamorality etc. (Not exactly proper philosophy, but I guess you will ask me: "On what grounds or basis do you demand that I should do proper philosophy?" So, ok.)

I notice that you and your alter ego are not convinced of any presented grounds for demanding that someone should do X. Fine - we needn´t play this infinite regress game any further, once we have learned how it works.

What you don´t seem to realize is that the same tactic can be successfully used to deconstruct your own version of moral objectivism and realism: What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?

How would "God says so" make Jeremy moral, particularly given that it must be taken on faith and there are multiple conflicting variations of it?

Considering that Jeremy (the case study, not the poster) is a psychopath, why should he even care about what God says? He has dismissed every moral claim presented to him thus far, so why wouldn't he dismiss moral claims derived from religion? He might respond with a yawning "So what?" Not even religion can make Jeremy adhere to moral obligations if he cannot grasp what it means to be morally obligated.

 

[Freodin]

What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?

I am waiting with bated breath for an answer to this question.

In one of his posts here, Jeremy already mentioned the reason threads like this come up over and over again: the "moral argument for the existence of God".

The OP is a classical example of that: ask where morals come from, if not from a moral law giver (God), discard, disregard, ignore any non-theistic answers and conclude "see, you need God to have morals".

But he ignores the problem - literally - that "moral law giver" does not provide an answer to this question at all... the question that he now keeps asking instead of the one in his OP: why should anyone be obliged to this moral law?

This is a very different question. The answer to the original question is rather simple: there is a "moral law giver"... it is "humans".

And there is another, rather simple (some might call it too simple) answer to the other question: one should be obliged to moral laws, because one decides to be.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

(emphasis added)
It´s entertaining to see how you, Walker, the guy who intitially came here to propagate moral objectivism and and moral realism, are now emphatically deconstructing these ideas.
You do that by introducing an infinite regress tactic: Whenever your "Why should [X]?" questions are answered [Y], you move to the next meta-level and ask "And why should he [/Y]" and so forth. You are mingling morality, meta-morality, meta-metamorality etc. (Not exactly proper philosophy, but I guess you will ask me: "On what grounds or basis do you demand that I should do proper philosophy?" So, ok.)

I notice that you and your alter ego are not convinced of any presented grounds for demanding that someone should do X. Fine - we needn´t play this infinite regress game any further, once we have learned how it works.

What you don´t seem to realize is that the same tactic can be successfully used to deconstruct your own version of moral objectivism and realism: What basis or grounds do you have for saying Jeremy should or ought obey God´s morality?

Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.

I am not the atheist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful.

And I have no alter ego. The Jeremy in my case study could just as easily be named quatona.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How would "God says so" make Jeremy moral, particularly given that it must be taken on faith and there are multiple conflicting variations of it?

Considering that Jeremy (the case study, not the poster) is a psychopath, why should he even care about what God says? He has dismissed every moral claim presented to him thus far, so why wouldn't he dismiss moral claims derived from religion? He might respond with a yawning "So what?" Not even religion can make Jeremy adhere to moral obligations if he cannot grasp what it means to be morally obligated.

He should because it is in my interests, so I say that hoping to influence him.

For him, if he is as cold as a stone, he is not morally apt, just as stones are not.

In fact psychopathy elucidates the point that, rather than being so cold, morality is about care of life forms for themselves.

 

[Freodin]

Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.

Atheists here have given their answers. Now it is your turn.

I am not the atheist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful.

So, are you the theist claiming that people should be empathetic or remorseful, or are you the theist claiming that people should not be empathetic or remorseful?

 

[Davian]

Shifting the burden over to me is not answering the question.

It's not like you can meet that burden, is it?

I'll answer the question for you:

 

[bhsmte]

I am not concerned with how they diagnose psychopathy. I know how they do.

What I am concerned with is their and your grounds or basis for saying that a homo sapien should possess trait x and if they do not they need treatment.

What is their standard? What is their rule? What grounds are they saying a person should or ought to be empathetic?

Why ought people be loving? Why ought people be kind?

If you know how a qualified psychologist diagnoses, then you have the answers to your questions.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If you know how a qualified psychologist diagnoses, then you have the answers to your questions.

Our discussion is concerned with the grounding of moral obligations, not how psychologists diagnose psychopathy.

You do understand that the two are not synonymous right?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's not like you can meet that burden, is it?

My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is a red herring.

Atheists must give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist. Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?

 

[Davian]

My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is a red herring.

Your inability to meet this burden glaringly obvious, in the form of threads such as this one.

But, I expect you to continue to continue your evasive behaviour, as you must.

Atheists must...

Atheists must only lack belief in deities.

give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist.

Myself and others have answered. So, what next? You have yet to respond to post #3.

Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?

As I do not come from the land of false dichotomies, I do not see these particular questions as properly formed.

 

[bhsmte]

Our discussion is concerned with the grounding of moral obligations, not how psychologists diagnose psychopathy.

You do understand that the two are not synonymous right?

I was directly addressing statements you made in one of your own posts.

 

[bhsmte]

My ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is a red herring.

Atheists must give an account for what grounds moral duties if they claim they exist. Are they grounded in human feelings and opinions or are they grounded objectively? If the latter, what is the grounds?

Why "must" they?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Your inability to meet this burden glaringly obvious, in the form of threads such as this one.

As I said, my ability or inability to meet this burden you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion.

Myself and others have answered. So, what next? You have yet to respond to post #3.

If by "answer" you mean a "response", then yes, I agree. If by answer, you mean "furnished the grounding for moral obligations", then you have not.

As I do not come from the land of false dichotomies, I do not see these particular questions as properly formed.

I am talking with people who claim there indeed are moral obligations. These are either grounded objectively i.e. independently of people's opinions, or subjectively.

For the one who does not deny the existence of moral duties, there is no third option, thus your charge of a false dichotomy is without warrant.