What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
[quote=Belinda post_id=608325 time=1667988951 user_id=12709]'
[quote]occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
"his fees were contingent on the success of his search"
[/quote](online dictionary)
Yes, I'd say morality is contingent upon one criterion or another. Criteria include;
1. Authority of God or ideology
2. Reason
3. One's own feelings and intuitions
4.Human nature.
Pure guessing is an interesting activity. Sometimes people try to rationalise guessing as applying to Fate or Fortune to settle some matter of morality or prediction; and Fate and Fortune too are criteria. More often people who guess don't even think about it but react to immediate circumstances like jumping into the water to save somebody from drowning. It's hard to generalise whether the life saving hero is so because she has been socialised to be so or because it's human nature to be kind.
[/quote]
Authority of any kind is an abdication of morality. Duty Ethics/deontology, is Not deciding what's right in the belief that someone else can be Mittal on your behalf. It was always a bad idea, with or without god. It's the opposite of responsibility which is a moral requisite.
Reason is always involved in morality, but not necessarily Good reasoning, which would lead to good morality if everyone had it.
Yes, this is more what i has in mind. The moral contingencies i have in mind include salience (if you don't care, they's no moral issue to you. If no sentient beings cares there's no moral problem), perspective (everything that only you can understand about a given situation, including both your physical perspective and your prior knowledge and experience), and priority. That last bit is explicitly the opposite of deontology. If your priorities aren't explicit, neither you nor anyone else can account for them and they're morally irrelevant.
That's imaginary for all practical purposes. People tend to act good in good circumstances and vice versa no matter what they believe.
In simpler terms, those things which are always involved at one level or other are Mere criteria. The contingent factors would be those things that make all the difference. For instance, deontology is amoral at best and if you're not making moral decisions for yourself, you're not acting morally. If salience is low for everyone involved, there's no moral issue at stake.
I'm not explaining it well, but i the difference i'm getting at is that some moral criteria are different because they make all the difference. Others are just factors to be weighed.
[quote]occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
"his fees were contingent on the success of his search"
[/quote](online dictionary)
Yes, I'd say morality is contingent upon one criterion or another. Criteria include;
1. Authority of God or ideology
2. Reason
3. One's own feelings and intuitions
4.Human nature.
Pure guessing is an interesting activity. Sometimes people try to rationalise guessing as applying to Fate or Fortune to settle some matter of morality or prediction; and Fate and Fortune too are criteria. More often people who guess don't even think about it but react to immediate circumstances like jumping into the water to save somebody from drowning. It's hard to generalise whether the life saving hero is so because she has been socialised to be so or because it's human nature to be kind.
[/quote]
Authority of any kind is an abdication of morality. Duty Ethics/deontology, is Not deciding what's right in the belief that someone else can be Mittal on your behalf. It was always a bad idea, with or without god. It's the opposite of responsibility which is a moral requisite.
Reason is always involved in morality, but not necessarily Good reasoning, which would lead to good morality if everyone had it.
Yes, this is more what i has in mind. The moral contingencies i have in mind include salience (if you don't care, they's no moral issue to you. If no sentient beings cares there's no moral problem), perspective (everything that only you can understand about a given situation, including both your physical perspective and your prior knowledge and experience), and priority. That last bit is explicitly the opposite of deontology. If your priorities aren't explicit, neither you nor anyone else can account for them and they're morally irrelevant.
That's imaginary for all practical purposes. People tend to act good in good circumstances and vice versa no matter what they believe.
In simpler terms, those things which are always involved at one level or other are Mere criteria. The contingent factors would be those things that make all the difference. For instance, deontology is amoral at best and if you're not making moral decisions for yourself, you're not acting morally. If salience is low for everyone involved, there's no moral issue at stake.
I'm not explaining it well, but i the difference i'm getting at is that some moral criteria are different because they make all the difference. Others are just factors to be weighed.
Re: What could make morality objective?
With the exception of your discussion of authority I found your discussion a little difficult to follow.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 2:25 pmAuthority of any kind is an abdication of morality. Duty Ethics/deontology, is Not deciding what's right in the belief that someone else can be Mittal on your behalf. It was always a bad idea, with or without god. It's the opposite of responsibility which is a moral requisite.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:15 am'(online dictionary)occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
"his fees were contingent on the success of his search"
Yes, I'd say morality is contingent upon one criterion or another. Criteria include;
1. Authority of God or ideology
2. Reason
3. One's own feelings and intuitions
4.Human nature.
Pure guessing is an interesting activity. Sometimes people try to rationalise guessing as applying to Fate or Fortune to settle some matter of morality or prediction; and Fate and Fortune too are criteria. More often people who guess don't even think about it but react to immediate circumstances like jumping into the water to save somebody from drowning. It's hard to generalise whether the life saving hero is so because she has been socialised to be so or because it's human nature to be kind.
Reason is always involved in morality, but not necessarily Good reasoning, which would lead to good morality if everyone had it.
Yes, this is more what i has in mind. The moral contingencies i have in mind include salience (if you don't care, they's no moral issue to you. If no sentient beings cares there's no moral problem), perspective (everything that only you can understand about a given situation, including both your physical perspective and your prior knowledge and experience), and priority. That last bit is explicitly the opposite of deontology. If your priorities aren't explicit, neither you nor anyone else can account for them and they're morally irrelevant.
That's imaginary for all practical purposes. People tend to act good in good circumstances and vice versa no matter what they believe.
In simpler terms, those things which are always involved at one level or other are Mere criteria. The contingent factors would be those things that make all the difference. For instance, deontology is amoral at best and if you're not making moral decisions for yourself, you're not acting morally. If salience is low for everyone involved, there's no moral issue at stake.
I'm not explaining it well, but i the difference i'm getting at is that some moral criteria are different because they make all the difference. Others are just factors to be weighed.
I think you sifted the criteria that I suggested, and sorted them into mere criteria , and contingent factors. I think you are also saying these contingent factors are firstly, care, secondly personal autonomy, and thirdly personally explicit moral tenets.
Have I understood you?
Re: What could make morality objective?
[quote=Belinda post_id=608390 time=1668030509 user_id=12709]
With the exception of your discussion of authority I found your discussion a little difficult to follow.
I think you sifted the criteria that I suggested, and sorted them into mere criteria , and contingent factors. I think you are also saying these contingent factors are firstly, care, secondly personal autonomy, and thirdly personally explicit moral tenets.
Have I understood you?
[/quote]
I reckon there are three prime contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, and everything else in the aesthetic/spiritual/moral universe is some variation of them.
..but i'm not convinced that's the best taxonomy, only better than any other i've found. There's definitely a best way to organise them, including everything we both said Maybe you can work it out.
With the exception of your discussion of authority I found your discussion a little difficult to follow.
I think you sifted the criteria that I suggested, and sorted them into mere criteria , and contingent factors. I think you are also saying these contingent factors are firstly, care, secondly personal autonomy, and thirdly personally explicit moral tenets.
Have I understood you?
[/quote]
I reckon there are three prime contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, and everything else in the aesthetic/spiritual/moral universe is some variation of them.
..but i'm not convinced that's the best taxonomy, only better than any other i've found. There's definitely a best way to organise them, including everything we both said Maybe you can work it out.
Re: What could make morality objective?
I like your aim.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:51 amI reckon there are three prime contingencies; salience, perspective, and priority, and everything else in the aesthetic/spiritual/moral universe is some variation of them.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:48 pm With the exception of your discussion of authority I found your discussion a little difficult to follow.
I think you sifted the criteria that I suggested, and sorted them into mere criteria , and contingent factors. I think you are also saying these contingent factors are firstly, care, secondly personal autonomy, and thirdly personally explicit moral tenets.
Have I understood you?
..but i'm not convinced that's the best taxonomy, only better than any other i've found. There's definitely a best way to organise them, including everything we both said Maybe you can work it out.
I have some difficulty with your taxonomy. What if the salient motive is fear? What if the perspective is singular, narrow or unremittingly introspective? What if the priority is greed?
Re: What could make morality objective?
What, actually, makes morality objective is the exact same thing that makes other things objective as well.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Which is precisely why the objective/subjective distinction is bunk.
What makes things anything is the same thing that makes anything anything; and it's the same thing that makes the anything/nothing distinction.
So what's the purpose of making the distinction?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Both are monistic. My version implies that absolute idealism is the better form of monism. I don't know if Age implied materialism is the better form of monism but I infer materialism from his version.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:02 amWhich is precisely why the objective/subjective distinction is bunk.
What makes things anything is the same thing that makes anything anything; and it's the same thing that makes the anything/nothing distinction.
So what's the purpose of making the distinction?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Both can be construed as monistic.
You can start by saying that everything is objective; and then make the case for special the exception that is "subjectivity".
You can start by saying that everything is subjective; and then make the case for the exception that is "objectivity".
Re: What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Yes, they are both monistic as I said.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:24 amBoth can be construed as monistic.
You can start by saying that everything is objective; and then make the case for special the exception that is "subjectivity".
You can start by saying that everything is subjective; and then make the case for the exception that is "objectivity".
If you were to claim "except for what is subjective" or "except for what is objective" you would not be a monist at all; you'd be a substance dualist. What Age , and I too, expressed does not swerve from monism.
Re: What could make morality objective?
To you
And what is that thing, EXACTLY?
To understand and know thy Self, as well as to make FULL sense of ALL-OF-THIS.
Re: What could make morality objective?
I have NO 'version', other than thee Truth, ALONE.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:19 amBoth are monistic. My version implies that absolute idealism is the better form of monism. I don't know if Age implied materialism is the better form of monism but I infer materialism from his version.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:02 amWhich is precisely why the objective/subjective distinction is bunk.
What makes things anything is the same thing that makes anything anything; and it's the same thing that makes the anything/nothing distinction.
So what's the purpose of making the distinction?
I was just expressing a Truth that NO could REFUTE.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Or, you could start by just LOOKING AT what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and then just SAYING/EXPRESSING 'that', ALONE.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:24 amBoth can be construed as monistic.
You can start by saying that everything is objective; and then make the case for special the exception that is "subjectivity".
You can start by saying that everything is subjective; and then make the case for the exception that is "objectivity".
Re: What could make morality objective?
That sounds like a pointless game.
What's the purpose of understanding and knowing thyself, as well as making full sense of all of this?
What will you DO with all of your understanding, and your self-knowledge once you make full sense of all this?