No, you are simply saying you are right, end of story, case closed.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:04 pmOne can be dogmatically wrong. Or one can be dogmatically right, of course. But I'm not actually being "dogmatic" at all:Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:59 pmVery well, IC, I can see you are determined to have it all your own way, no matter what. I really don't think you are going to win anyone over with that dogmatic attitude, though.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:21 pm
Perhaps. But it's really no "definition" at all, then. What it's "defining" is mere self-satisfaction, not at all anything recognizable as "morality."
I think you'll find that although many people may have a weak idea, or no credible idea, of what "morality" is, they still look to it to do some of the same functions they have always expected of a real "morality." They'll still expect it to provide order and direction to their conceptions of social justice, for example; they'll still complain that "injustices" like theft, violence or slander are "wrong" in an essentially objective sense, they'll still need to order their relationships with people and things by some principle, they'll still struggle with guilt and conscience when they do what they sense is "the wrong thing," they'll still hope that following some conception they have of good behaviour confirms them to be "good people," and they'll still object when things are "unfair" even if there was never any promise of "fairness" in their own essential worldview in the first place. All of that is moralizing, and in quite an objective mode, as well.
People are often illogical. But that's the value of logic: that it disciplines these rogue and inconsistent prejudices by requiring them to be made sensible. So using logic, we can see that their premises about the world do not fit with the value-judgments they routinely make; and we can quite straightforwardly grasp that they are not understanding themselves clearly, and are operating by instinct, habit, fear or tradition rather than by clear understanding of what they are doing.
That's pretty routine. But so is the fact that people want and need morality, even if in their personal theorizing, they mistakenly suppose it's all only subjective anyway. You'll note here, on this thread, that many people who profess to be Atheists or skeptics of some kind when it comes to questions about God, still rather irrationally want not to let morality cease to be a thing. They've undercut the moral authority of their own worldview, but they still yearn to be able to tell us that their "morality" is real and certain. It's like they want to talk like a subjectivist, when morality pinches them, particularly, but have all the benefits and cachet of moral objectivism anyway. They're wanting to have their cake, and eat it too.
That's people.
But isn't something supposed to be apparent to more than just one person before it qualifies as being obvious?I'm just pointing out what's pretty obviously true about what morality is.
please brain just pray for me, please, I ask you one last thing, please just this once work with me. Work brain work.
