Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Morality

Post by Sculptor » Thu May 21, 2020 7:28 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:53 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:11 pm

Plato — 'No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.'
Self flattery does not make what you say the truth.
There’s no one to speak the truth..that’s the truth ..it’s a relative empty concept, is truth....
Self contradiction!.
The quote is metaphysical ..it has Nothing to do with self flattery foo.
"Quote"?? Says who?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3948
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Morality

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri May 22, 2020 1:24 am

RCSaunders wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Language is the codification of thought in either written or spoken form so thought logically must always precede language
if you can think without language explain without using language how
I could do that but you would have to be able to read my mind - something you cannot actually do - so not a very practical suggestion of yours
And also as language is the only way we can communicate with each other on this forum then not using it to answer a question makes no sense

Thought is natural because it is electro chemical activity in the brain but language is a human construct so it has to be learned
When a baby is born it has the ability to think in response to sense perception but it does not have the ability to speak or write

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 3768
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri May 22, 2020 5:53 am

Harbal wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 10:21 am

Not sure of your point?

Are you implying we don't seek a consensus of the definition of the terms used [or at least with qualified reservations] then we can proceed to discuss and debates.
Can we not come to at least some understanding of what (in this case) morality is, without trying to force it into some fuzzy definition of either objective or subjective?
Getting to the heart of the matter is the objective, isn't it, or do you think trying to sound like our idea of what proper philosophers sound like is the most important thing?
Yes, we do have to use definitions, and it is important that they are clearly established at the outset, but they are only tools to help us, they are not an end in themselves.
I agree, getting to the heart of the matter is more critical.
However we need to ensure the definition of terms used are not at extreme opposites else we need to narrow the differences as much as possible.
I think this is not advisable since both parties will be talking pass each other till the cows come home.
Isn't that what is already happening? It seems that everybody is more interested in obliterating everybody else than trying to understand what they are saying. How many posts have their been about morality recently? Has anything at all been established about the nature of morality? You seem to be defending something that clearly is not working.
Nah, it is not obliterating.
Philosophy is about getting to the beliefs and truths which must be justified, not obliterated.
The bottom line is, where are one's justified and sound arguments.

As far are morality is concern, as you stated, it is an innate sense we are born with.
Therefore morality is confined within the human brain, i.e. the 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses.

Since morality is confined to some specific finite space within the brain [not like infinite universe], we should be able [very possible] to determine the nature of the extent [boundaries] "what is morality" in time.
The genome was once thought to be impossible to be mapped, but we have already done it by now and I am optimistic we will be able to establish what is the nature of morality [assuming we agree what it is] in the future.

I am not blindly defending something [morality] that is not working.
As stated above, I am optimistic with what is morality, that is why I am researching and exploring via an extensive literature review of "what is morality" with the hope of getting in alignment of what 'morality' is naturally within the human psyche.

I am serious on this, since refreshing Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, by now I have read more that 60 articles on morality and read & scan more that 30 books on morality and ethics. Suggest you do the same, then we can establish where we can agree and disagree on what is morality up to a point in time.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7985
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Jains Jungle

Re: Morality

Post by Dontaskme » Fri May 22, 2020 1:13 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:28 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:53 pm


Self flattery does not make what you say the truth.
There’s no one to speak the truth..that’s the truth ..it’s a relative empty concept, is truth....
Self contradiction!.
The quote is metaphysical ..it has Nothing to do with self flattery foo.
"Quote"?? Says who?
Say's no one.

No one...is self contratictory. Except the no one is one, in that there is no such thing as one because there is no other than one.


Hope you get the gist.

Belinda
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Morality

Post by Belinda » Fri May 22, 2020 1:31 pm

Harbal wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:32 am
Harbal wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 11:59 am


Although there is much disagreement about which label to stick on morality -objective or subjective, there seems to be a total consensus that it does need to have a label stuck onto it. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that this insistence on labelling is proving to be an impediment to our understanding.
In philosophy 'definition' and consensus [must be reached or with qualified reservations] to the definition is critical, else everyone will talk pass each other all the time.
"Morality", "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are synthetically constructed concepts, none of them have any form of existence outside of human minds. Each of them is only what we say it is, and we humans not only have a tendency to disagree, many of us seem to take great delight in it. Philosophy may well demand precision, but it also has to accept that some things will simply not be bossed about in that way. Just because you've got a round hole called objectivity, and a square one called subjectivity, any object that you might want to put into one of them may well not be conveniently round or square. It is no good ordering it to make its mind up. You could probably bash it through either hole if you hit it hard enough with a hammer, but not without making a mess of both the object and the hole.

We often know what somebody means, even though they might not have used exactly the right word, or the proper terminology expected by over pedantic philosophers. Far better to ask for clarification than to force them to mean something they didn't. Perhaps if some of us were to stop behaving as though we were reincarnations of Kant or Nietzsche, or whoever. While many of those long dead philosophers may well have been geniuses, many also seem to have been antisocial crackpots. You can get away with being an antisocial crackpot when you are a genius, but I don't think there are any geniuses here.
This discussion group on the whole does not discuss philosophy as an academic discipline. but it has certain standards. There is no point in coming to a discussion that purports to be philosophy unless you risk your favourite biases.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4172
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by Harbal » Fri May 22, 2020 1:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:53 am
The bottom line is, where are one's justified and sound arguments.
Well I have never seen an argument here that was sound enough to make the other guy admit he was wrong.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4172
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by Harbal » Fri May 22, 2020 1:55 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:31 pm
This discussion group on the whole does not discuss philosophy as an academic discipline. but it has certain standards. There is no point in coming to a discussion that purports to be philosophy unless you risk your favourite biases.
I like to think I have a realistic idea of what can be achieved here, Belinda. :)

Skepdick
Posts: 3776
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality

Post by Skepdick » Fri May 22, 2020 4:03 pm

Harbal wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:51 pm
Well I have never seen an argument here that was sound enough to make the other guy admit he was wrong.
I like how you blame the arguments, and not the idiots arguing.

Is precisely because "wrongness" is a moral judgment about an argument is why the whole affair of being wrong about morality is somewhat circular.

The "right"/"wrong" distinction is the first problem of analytic philosophy.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4172
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by Harbal » Fri May 22, 2020 5:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:03 pm
Harbal wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:51 pm
Well I have never seen an argument here that was sound enough to make the other guy admit he was wrong.
I like how you blame the arguments, and not the idiots arguing.
You would probably like it even more if you understood irony.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by attofishpi » Fri May 22, 2020 5:47 pm

Harbal wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:40 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:03 pm
Harbal wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:51 pm
Well I have never seen an argument here that was sound enough to make the other guy admit he was wrong.
I like how you blame the arguments, and not the idiots arguing.
You would probably like it even more if you understood irony.
:D ...i'm always wrong and I blame the idiot I am talking to.

Skepdick
Posts: 3776
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality

Post by Skepdick » Fri May 22, 2020 5:50 pm

Harbal wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:40 pm
You would probably like it even more if you understood irony.
My liking is infinite.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:38 pm
Are you preaching irony to an ironist? That's ironic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by attofishpi » Fri May 22, 2020 5:55 pm

.
Attachments
attos_insomnia.jpg
attos_insomnia.jpg (8.25 KiB) Viewed 81 times

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3862
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Morality

Post by Lacewing » Fri May 22, 2020 5:59 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:55 pm
..."someone is wrong on the internet"...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Morality

Post by attofishpi » Fri May 22, 2020 6:06 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:59 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:55 pm
..."someone is wrong on the internet"...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:D

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Morality

Post by Sculptor » Fri May 22, 2020 10:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:13 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 7:28 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 pm


There’s no one to speak the truth..that’s the truth ..it’s a relative empty concept, is truth....
Self contradiction!.
The quote is metaphysical ..it has Nothing to do with self flattery foo.
"Quote"?? Says who?
Say's no one.

No one...is self contratictory. Except the no one is one, in that there is no such thing as one because there is no other than one.


Hope you get the gist.
It's either a quote or it aint

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests