Why Be Moral?

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Most people do. The wholesale version is called oppression and is usually done by means of, "governments." The retail version is just meddling. The consequences are not up to me, reality determines them.

But there's nothing wrong with doing that, so who cares?

Desires or wants have nothing to do with what is good, bad, right, or wrong. First there must be some objective, purpose, goal, or end relative to which something has such a value.

That's my argument, a person can desire things which are inherently "bad", or shun things which are inherently "good"; it may be up to them to decide what do to, but a person wouldn't be able to decide for themselves in a vacuum what the inherent natures of goodness, badness, and so forth are, or else that would absurdist and nihilistic.

Even if a rapist elected to call rape "good" for some reason or another, or said that rape is right "for them", that wouldn't have any bearing on the inherent qualities of "rape" which make it what it is to begin with.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

First there must be some objective, purpose, goal, or end relative to which something has such a value.

So what types of objectives are "good" or "bad", and how is "value defined".

This isn't an "end justifies the means" argument is it? (Anything, even rape or murder is "fine" so long as it leads to the same value or consequence)?

[henry quirk]

It's literally the question whether or not any empirical fact makes us "owe" anybody (ourselves or anyone else) anything.

Where's the ought in mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else?

Right there.

"You ought (by implication, since it's a command) to mind your own business, and keep your hands to yourself."

Where's the ought in don't leash man?

"You ought not to leash man."

Where's the ought in a man's life, liberty, and property are his alone?

"You ought to recognize that a man's life, liberty and property are his alone."

Ought, seems to be, is just torturin' the language.

No, it's there: it's always implicit in a command. Commands take the tacit subject "you," and a command implies an "ought."

It's language games.

You ought, you ought not; you should, you should not; do, don't.

Crap.

[Immanuel Can]

Ought, seems to be, is just torturin' the language.

No, it's there: it's always implicit in a command. Commands take the tacit subject "you," and a command implies an "ought."

It's language games.

You ought, you ought not; you should, you should not; do, don't.

Crap.

It's not, Henry. Sorry.

Think about it this way: if you issue a command or instruction, to whom are you speaking? It's always to some "you."

Even if you tell Henry, "Henry, respect people's property," you're treating yourself as a "you." You're talking TO yourself, as we say.

But also, if you command or instruct somebody to do something, then how can you even expect them to do it if they already know "ought not" or "have no incentive" to do it? Something has to make them "ought to do it."

So both "you" and "ought" are implied by any command or instruction at all.

[henry quirk]

No, it's there: it's always implicit in a command. Commands take the tacit subject "you," and a command implies an "ought."

It's language games.

You ought, you ought not; you should, you should not; do, don't.

Crap.

It's not, Henry. Sorry.

Think about it this way: if you issue a command or instruction, to whom are you speaking? It's always to some "you."

Even if you tell Henry, "Henry, respect people's property," you're treatingr yourself as a "you." You're talking TO yourself, as we say.

But also, if you command or instruct somebody to do something, then how can you even expect them to do it if they already know "ought not" or "have no incentive" to do it? Something has to make them "ought to do it."

So both "you" and "ought" are implied by any command or instruction at all.

crap

Here's my car. Leave it be or I'll kick your ass.

There's no ought or should. There's a flat-out don't mess with my stuff, or else.

Here I am. Leave me be or I'll shoot you in the face.

There's no ought or should. There's a flat-out don't mess with me, or else.

I'm goin' there. Get out of my way or I'll break you.

There's no ought or should. There's a flat-out don't obstruct me, or else.

Moral reality is no different than the reality of a flame. Stick your naked hand in fire, you get burned. Lesson learned (don't stick your naked hand in fire). Mess with a person, a person's property, a person's liberty, you get beat, shot, or broken. Lesson learned (mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else).

[henry quirk]

https://www.grammar.com/should_vs._ought_to_vs._must

I belong to me, so, you should leave me be.

I belong to me, so you ought to leave me be.

I belong to me, so you must leave me be.

Language games; philo-dissection & -justification.

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

[Immanuel Can]

So both "you" and "ought" are implied by any command or instruction at all.

crap

Here's my car. Leave it be or I'll kick your ass.

There's no ought or should. There's a flat-out don't mess with my stuff, or else.

The "you" is in red, the "ought" is in blue.

Here I am. Leave me be or I'll shoot you in the face.

I'm goin' there. Get out of my way or I'll break you.

It keeps reappearing, no matter how hard one tries to get it out.

[Immanuel Can]

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

Then Stan is a bad person. He's vicious to those who could not possibly know they'd done anything wrong.

Stan had no "ought" that told him to mind his own business, or that he should not put his hands on anyone else -- because he couldn't reasonably be expected to have an "ought" or to know that he was morally addressed ("you") in the situation, as you're telling the story. So that means Stan gave no warning, but just exploded.

Stan's a bad man. He should be sent to jail for gratuitous violent behaviour. He's not safe to have in public.

But you're going to respond that anybody who puts his hands on another SHOULD know that HE was not doing the right thing. And again, the "ought" and "you" are going to pop back in.

[henry quirk]

So both "you" and "ought" are implied by any command or instruction at all.

crap

Here's my car. Leave it be or I'll kick your ass.

There's no ought or should. There's a flat-out don't mess with my stuff, or else.

The "you" is in red, the "ought" is in blue.

Here I am. Leave me be or I'll shoot you in the face.

I'm goin' there. Get out of my way or I'll break you.

It keeps reappearing, no matter how hard one tries to get it out.

We're just gonna have to disagree on this one cuz I ain't seein' it.

[henry quirk]

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

Then Stan is a bad person. He's vicious to those who could not possibly know they'd done anything wrong.

And so am I. Come to me, lay hands on me as I sit twiddlin' my thumbs, and I most surely will beat your ass.

[henry quirk]

https://www.grammar.com/should_vs._ought_to_vs._must

I belong to me, so, you should leave me be.

I belong to me, so you ought to leave me be.

I belong to me, so you must leave me be.

Language games; philo-dissection & -justification.

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

I wonder if there's an language, past or present, that had or has no should, ought, or must.

[Skepdick]

No, it's there: it's always implicit in a command. Commands take the tacit subject "you," and a command implies an "ought."

You are stretching the truth. There is an implicit "you" and "ought" in every linguistic expression.

If you take phenomenology as a point of departure intentionality towards an object of experience happens before any linguistic utterance. Simply focusing your attention on any object of experience is already an "ought" - you ought to focus your attention on X! Do you, really? Why?

To utter any sentence explicitly implies "You ought to speak". Do you, really? Why?

If the is-ought gap was to be strictly enforced all Philosophers would immediately shut up.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Most people do. The wholesale version is called oppression and is usually done by means of, "governments." The retail version is just meddling. The consequences are not up to me, reality determines them.

I've seen that "most people" likewise resent the notion of "involvement" but without any reasonable attempt to address the issue in a serious way that even meet the bare minimum requirements to be actually considered a serious legal or governmental discussion to begin with.

"Governments" have been around since ancient Rome up until the present day, so the people whining about the same, ubiquitous little issue in the days of Rome were just as impotent.

Even in the earliest human tribes, such as hunter-gatherers, or in "private" entitles such as families, parents, etc even if there was no formal law or legislation, there would still be informal "government" or "rules" one is except to follow or comply with on some level or another; your view, if consistent would have to likewise define families as a form of "government, oppression, meddling", since a child is "born into" a family he doesn't choose to belong to, and required to follow "their rules", at least until he is legally an adult and can make his own decisions, so your view, if consistent wouldn't be able to rationally define any difference between said situation and a "government", and eventually simply lead to nihilism, something akin to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, since nonexistence would be the only way to "escape" this phenomena entirely, just it would be the only way to practice "nonviolence" or "nonaggression" consistently, since at most, one could only minimize it, not fully "eliminate it" no matter how hard they tried.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

I only make decisions for myself. Everyone has their own mind and must make their own choices and decisions. It's not something I decided, it is one's own nature that necessitates it.

I argue rather that, the immoral, such as a rapist or a murderer, necessitate that they be governed by force due to lacking any moral compass or self-restraint of their own, and not allowed to make such aberrant "decisions, not for themselves, nor for others", not at all.

[Impenitent]

The wordless exchange is best, most direct: Stan is mindin' his own business, Joe comes along and lays hands on Stan, Stan proceeds to beat the high holy hell out of Joe.

Then Stan is a bad person. He's vicious to those who could not possibly know they'd done anything wrong.

And so am I. Come to me, lay hands on me as I sit twiddlin' my thumbs, and I most surely will beat your ass.

donkey abuse does not necessitate total badness...

-Imp