Terrapin Station wrote:ken wrote:Do you think it could be possible that if all individuals coincidentally had the exact same preference about interpersonal behavior, then that commonly held shared preference could have come from an inner unconscious knowing of what is actually right and wrong?
Well first I don't think that one can know what's right and wrong (morally).
Yes I know what you think already. I have already acknowledged that. That is why I asked you if "you think it
could be possible ..."
Your response shows you are not open to the idea that it could be possible. That is fair enough. You are free to be as open or as closed as you choose to be. But truthfully I am still unsure how open you are, or if you are. You say you "do not
think that one can know what is right and wrong (morally)". On a scale of 1 to 100 is there a possibility that one can know what is right and wrong (morally), 1 being no possibility and 100 being absolutely there is a possibility.
Terrapin Station wrote:Because propositional knowledge requires that something is true. Moral claims are not, and can not be, true (or false).
Are you absolutely sure of this?
If it is true that every person agrees on at least one moral claim, then could that moral claim be true?
Aside from that perhaps more "technical" point, could it contingently be the case that everyone feels the same way on some moral stance? Sure.
Terrapin Station wrote:What I wouldn't say, though, is that that is evidence of the moral stance existing prior to individuals being aware that they have that moral stance. I don't know how there could possibly be evidence of that.
I have explained already how that evidence can and does exist.
The evidence can not be provided to you here for two reasons:
1. If you continue to show in your writings that you believe that there is no possibility.
2. Evidence can only become apparent to you when you come to the realization that you already knew some thing prior to becoming consciously aware of it.
If a person never comes to that realization, then that is fine. No one says a person "has to".
Terrapin Station wrote:I'm going to use symbols abstractly for a moment: let's say that a particular moral stance is the first-person perspective of the brain state represented by «€©. Well, prior to that moral stance being a conscious phenomenon, it could be the case that contingently, everyone has a brain with the structures/processes ¥[®£.
¥[®£ is not itself a conscious state, and it's not itself a mental state. However, ¥[®£ always subsequently causes brain state «€©, and «€© is a conscious/mental state--namely, the particular moral stance in question.
Who says and/or why does ¥[®£ always subsequently
causes brain state «€©?
How does ¥[®£
always causes brain state «€©?
How do you propose the brain works?
I can not make sense of your idea here. Maybe I need to firstly grasp your idea of 'brain state', how 'some thing causes brain states'', and the 'structures/processes' you talk about.
Terrapin Station wrote: How exactly does each "person's" brain work?
Are you asking for 7 billion different moment-by-moment accounts on a molecular (or finer-grained) level?
No.
You said the reason why we all think and do what what we do is "Because that's the way each person's brain works" ultimately.
To Me what appeared in your response was that you knew how the brain worked, ultimately. I was just asking you to clarify how the brain works actually.
Terrapin Station wrote:
How do you propose needs always hinge on wants?
"I need water"--well, that's because you want to quench your thirst, you want to remain alive, etc.
I can very easily see how that need is hinged on a want in that example. I can also see how our three other needs hinge on our wants in three other examples. But, to Me, every other want is just that, 'a want', it is not 'a need', and by saying our needs always hinge on wants is just another way we "justify to ourselves" (only) our greedy (and wrong) behaviors.
Sure, our very minimal needs do hinge on our wants, but, how many of our wants hinge on our needs?
Do I really 'need' the brand new ferrari when I say, "I want one"?
Or, do I really 'need' the brand new car when I say, "I need one"?