PH's Own Internal Standards as Moral Facts

[Peter Holmes]

An appeal to intuition is always the last refuge of the philosophical scoundrel.

[Skepdick]

An appeal to intuition is always the last refuge of the philosophical scoundrel.

Is this true; or are you lying?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hitler aside, most folks (and I did stipulate "more often", not "always") have a pretty good moral code perhaps containing a few edicts that conflict with what is generally considered ideal, but frequently violate their moral codes, usually in minor ways. Thus I've heard nothing that effectively contradicts my previous post.

Oh and BTW, using Hitler specifically as an example, tends to make your audience tune out on what you're trying to say.

To each their own is not effective for morality.
It may work with the obvious moral elements [e.g. killing another human] but there a big range of other moral elements.

Note Kant's Categorical Imperative;

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
which actually meant

"Be guided only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

It is always easier to work with a fixed goal post than one that move too easily left to it may concern.
Fixed in this case does not mean absolutely fixed but can be changed if well justified.

"To each their own is not effective"? What are you talking about? We're discussing personal (first person) moral codes. You're taking the community's (third person) perspective.

I agree, morality is primarily a personal issue but it related to a community where there are shared moral principles and values.

You can beat your drum outside of an agent's mind, but the agent's mind is going to formulate their moral code. Thus why morality lends itself to description and much, much less to influence.

You'd be more on-topic to address the community's ethical standard, ie ethics, rather than morality.

I am not sure what is the issue.
Here is my take which may or may not align with your above.

I differentiates between Morality as Pure to Ethics as Applied [e.g. Pure and Applied Mathematics or science].
As I had stated, morality is a personal issue, thus the unfoldment of the moral code is within the individual, not from the community.
Ethics [applied] is the adaption of Moral principles in practice, thus involve the individual with the community.

Moral principles must be objective moral facts thus not description themselves but rather can be described.

[Skepdick]

<...>

If you can't even establish the possibility of Falsehood/Lying, and why that's immoral everything else is a waste of time.

Philosophers are just going to keep on lying without consequence. And then accuse you of the same.

Philosophy is intentional intellectual dishonesty and deceit for the sake of pedagogy. And they are all fucking with you to waste your time, instead of telling you what they are actually doing and why they are doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

<...>

If you can't even establish the possibility of Falsehood/Lying, and why that's immoral everything else is a waste of time.

Philosophers are just going to keep on lying without consequence. And then accuse you of the same.

Philosophy is intentional intellectual dishonesty and deceit for the sake of pedagogy. And they are all fucking with you to waste your time, instead of telling you what they are actually doing and why they are doing.

Note this;

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) proposed that there are no conceivable circumstances in which lying is morally acceptable.
He argued that morality is rooted in our capacity to make free, rational choices and that lying is, in effect, an assault on morality because it aims to undermine this capacity.
Kant also affirmed that the moral law demands that we treat others as ends-in-themselves, whereas lying involves treating others merely as means.
The Kantian perspective contrasts sharply with that of consequentialists, who hold that the moral value of an act lies entirely in the degree to which it maximizes some nonmoral good.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/lying/ ... y-of-lying

There are more detailed argument to the above.

In the majority of cases, Kant's view on the above is misinterpreted as 'lying is absolutely not permissible'.
Kant morality and ethics proper do not advocate the above absolute sense.

For Kant there are two imperatives;
1. Categorical Imperative - uncompromisable without exceptions.
2. Hypothetical Imperative - depends on conditions and contexts.

Kant categorical imperatives are merely guides not enforceable on individuals.
Thus the "No Lying" as a maxim within the categorical imperative is not to be enforced on individuals but merely guide the individual pragmatic ethics.

Under the hypothetical imperatives, an individual can lie under justified conditions but one must always be mindful of the categorical imperative to avoid lying as much as possible unless no choice for pragmatic reasons that is net-positive to the well-being of the individual and therefrom humanity.

With the overriding categorical imperative of 'lying is not morally permissible' humanity must dig into the root causes to prevent rather that fire-fighting lying.

[Skepdick]

<...>

If you can't even establish the possibility of Falsehood/Lying, and why that's immoral everything else is a waste of time.

Philosophers are just going to keep on lying without consequence. And then accuse you of the same.

Philosophy is intentional intellectual dishonesty and deceit for the sake of pedagogy. And they are all fucking with you to waste your time, instead of telling you what they are actually doing and why they are doing.

Note this;

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) proposed that there are no conceivable circumstances in which lying is morally acceptable.
He argued that morality is rooted in our capacity to make free, rational choices and that lying is, in effect, an assault on morality because it aims to undermine this capacity.
Kant also affirmed that the moral law demands that we treat others as ends-in-themselves, whereas lying involves treating others merely as means.
The Kantian perspective contrasts sharply with that of consequentialists, who hold that the moral value of an act lies entirely in the degree to which it maximizes some nonmoral good.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/lying/ ... y-of-lying

There are more detailed argument to the above.

In the majority of cases, Kant's view on the above is misinterpreted as 'lying is absolutely not permissible'.
Kant morality and ethics proper do not advocate the above absolute sense.

For Kant there are two imperatives;
1. Categorical Imperative - uncompromisable without exceptions.
2. Hypothetical Imperative - depends on conditions and contexts.

Kant categorical imperatives are merely guides not enforceable on individuals.
Thus the "No Lying" as a maxim within the categorical imperative is not to be enforced on individuals but merely guide the individual pragmatic ethics.

Under the hypothetical imperatives, an individual can lie under justified conditions but one must always be mindful of the categorical imperative to avoid lying as much as possible unless no choice for pragmatic reasons that is net-positive to the well-being of the individual and therefrom humanity.

With the overriding categorical imperative of 'lying is not morally permissible' humanity must dig into the root causes to prevent rather that fire-fighting lying.

Doesn't matter if Kant says it - the Philosophers will just shrug it off as his opinion.

Is it really immoral to lie? Says Kant? Who cares?

The game is rigged. Rule-breaking always "wins" in debate. Because the rules don't apply to the liar busy enforcing them.

That's why Flash Dangerdork denies reciprocity. He gets to be an ass without consequences.