TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

(who knows, maybe you'll finally win a game)

No longer interested.

You're no fun,...

Still not interested. Not going to be.

[Atla]

[Harbal]

Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there.

I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let's agree on what any "moral" system (objective, subjective, Nihilistic, or whatever) must be able to deliver at minimum.

I don't know how we suddenly came to be talking about this concept of a "moral system". While I am happy to discuss morality, I'm afraid I know nothing about moral systems.

Everybody's got a moral system. If you don't know you do, then this will be new information for you...but that's fine.

Subjectivism seems to be yours. I know you don't recognize the word, but if you ever need an accurate name for what you are espousing, that's it.

If asked my views on morality, I would rather describe them than assign them a collective name.

But what is the purpose of a moral system, would you say?

No, no...no skating away, now.

I asked you a reasonable question, and gave you my first criterion. You owe me a response, in fairness. Do you believe that anything worth of being called "moral" should be able to impose one moral duty on at least one person?

In order to be called moral, meaning ethically right, something must conform to a set of criteria that is deemed to be morally desirable. That in itself imposes no duty on anyone. In order for morality to be effective -result in some "good"- there needs to be some compulsion to abide by it, so some feeling of obligation, or "duty", would be necessary in that respect. That obligation could be placed on us by some legal system, or other authority, but if we experience it as a duty, I think that has to be self imposed. Morality is just a code of "good" conduct, or behaviour, how people are persuaded to comply with it is not something I really have an opinion on. Most of what I have said about morality so far has been to do with our personal sense of right and wrong, where, as individuals, we we are guided by it to varying degrees.

I suspect that doesn't answer your question, but your use of the word, duty, is giving me a problem. It seems to me that a duty is something one has to agree to, or accept, otherwise it is just an authoritative demand. So, to put it into the context of what I understand your argument to be, I could feel obliged to behave in accordance with what I understood God's moral demands to be, but I wouldn't necessarily believe it was morally good to do so.

Before we talk about imposing "duties" on people to abide by moral systems, shouldn't we first establish what our reasons for wanting them are?

No, because our "reasons for wanting them" are immaterial if we don't know what it is we want. What's relevant, then, is a definition of what we're claiming to want."

But to adopt a system, or impose duties, without knowing what you want to achieve by it makes no sense. Surely, purpose has to come before action. If we don't know what we want, there isn't much point in doing anything, because that could well result in something we don't want.

Hey, you're the one who said to me, "You could start by explaining what you think morality is." I gave you my first criterion, and you've said nothing about it. Fair's fair. What's your first criterion?

Well, basically, I think morality is what the dictionary says it is: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. I think I've said this a few times, in various ways.

Or would you rather respond to whether or not you agree with mine?

If you are prepared to do that, I will give you a response, yes.

I think the value of morality lies in how much happier, safer and more pleasant it makes life for us all.

Stop. You haven't said which "morality."

It is what I think one of the main guiding principle of morality should be. My concept of morality.

Do you really think The Hammurabi Code, Communist 'morality', The Final Solution, Social Darwnism,The Bushido Code or Sharia makes life "happier, safer and more pleasant for us all."

Presumably, the people who advocate those things believe they are morally righteous. I don't agree with them, of course, and they would probably not agree with my concept of morality.

Well, those are codes that sizeable numbers of people have accepted as their "morality." But I can't imagine you mean any of those, because the folly of that would be too, too obvious.

If it brings about what they perceive as morally desirable, they will not see it as folly.

Which code makes everybody ""happier, safer and more pleasant for us all." You need to say it. Are you backing the English post-Protestant morality of England in the Late 20th Century, which is what you were raised with, no doubt?

I suppose I am thinking in terms of individual societies. I can't imagine a set of moral values and principles that would be accepted worldwide. I suppose the situation is much more problematic now than it used to be, with our modern diverse and multicultural societies.

I think there is a distinction between what might be called personal morality, and social morality, but I get the impression you see no such distinction, and I suspect that is sometimes confusing the issue as far as understanding each other is concerned.

[commonsense]

I don't know what "correct bad" means. Help me out here, if you would.

Sorry. bad was a slip of the fingers. Just ignore the word. I will edit it out.

No problem. Would you be so kind as to rephrase the question itself? I seem to be missing the intention.

OK—what are you going to say next?

[Sculptor]

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

I think IC has the potential to be intelligent.
His trouble is that his final flield of reference; his final arbiter; and rational measure is a fantasy world.
When you rely on an imaginary friend the only evidence for is a book which ranges between 3000 years old and 1300 years old wirten by disparate and contradictory sources, then you are bound to come across as a little bit idiotic. And IC relies in this fantasy all the time. It is the thing to which all
things are ultimately compared.
This makes him completely useless on a philosphy forum, except as a running joke.

I'd prefer a dumb religious sociopath over an intelligent non-religious sociopath though. One of the reasons Christianity was successful was that it forced an artificial conscience onto the sociopaths and other Cluster B types, decreasing the damage they did to others.

Not particularly relevent. He's only a sociopath because of his theism.
And fuck his "conscience". His morals are disgraceful.

[Immanuel Can]

In order for morality to be effective -result in some "good"- there needs to be some compulsion to abide by it, so some feeling of obligation, or "duty", would be necessary in that respect.

I think we're starting to find a point of agreement here. If somebody had a desire or idea, but had no sense of...to use your word..."compulsion," then it would lack something we require of any genuine "morality". And this gives us another criterion:

• Morality has to be capable of coming with some 'compulsive' property, at least in the way of a legitimate feeling of obligation, if not something more definite than that.

That obligation could be placed on us by some legal system, or other authority, but if we experience it as a duty, I think that has to be self imposed.

Okay. Can I first summarize that, just to see if I've got your point? I think what you're saying is that you don't regard a...let's use your word..."compulsion" derived from outside of yourself to be genuinely "moral." Is that the substance of it?

But then we have a further problem. If self-imposition is all that's required, can one "self-impose" something that is not moral? Can one be misguided by one's desires, or misinterpret one's obligation to one's "self-compulsion"? Or does everything one "self-imposes" automatically become "right" just because one "self-imposed" it?

And one more problem: how are we to judge morally among opposite "compulsions"? If you find that beating women is immoral (which I assume you do), what do you do when your neighbour believes in Sharia and feels a "moral compulsion" or "moral obligation" to beat his wife (with the Koranic limits, of course; no using a stick thicker than a man's finger) when she displeases him or fails in some perceived responsibility?

I suspect that doesn't answer your question, but your use of the word, duty, is giving me a problem.

Well, let's not make that a sticking point. After all, I gave you alternate words, such as "should" and "ought." You can pick the one you want, if the word "duty" offends you. But I don't think it needs to...all I'm talking about is that "compulsion" property that you, yourself identified. Call it "duty" or call it "compulsion," or "ought" or "should," or whatever. The important point is that at least one person has to gain some clear sense of obligation to do some particular thing (or to refrain from one), or "morality" isn't achieving what we definitionally expect of "morality." So really, you agree with my first criterion, so long as we change the word "duty" to something else, right?

It seems to me that a duty is something one has to agree to, or accept, otherwise it is just an authoritative demand.

Okay. Let me repeat back, just so I get what you're saying right.

Your first criterion of morality would be that it has to be "self-imposed," and not "imposed" by an "authority"? Is that right?

But to adopt a system, or impose duties, without knowing what you want to achieve by it makes no sense.

This would be a serious problem with the "self-imposed" criterion. It would give you no way of assessing, among all the desires it's possible for you (or others) to have, which of those desires is genuinely moral. And I'm pretty sure you're going to see the reasonableness of somebody doubting that, say, bloodlust or vengeance, or the desire to humiliate or rape, among other desires, are not likely to be appropriately moral. So if there are desire that one might "self-impose," but are not moral, we're going to need an additional criterion to divide between the things self-imposed on the basis of moral desires, and the things self-imposed by base, vile, violent or unworthy desires.

What can you supplement your first criterion with, so we eliminate the bad stuff?

Well, basically, I think morality is what the dictionary says it is: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. I think I've said this a few times, in various ways.

It doesn't say where those "principles" come from, so it's really not very useful as a definition, I have to say. It also doesn't tell us how to discern between "wrong" and "right" or "good" and "bad," so it really just says, "Somebody got something he/she calls 'a principle' from somewhere, and that's what morality is." If we can't do better than that, I'm afraid we'll never really have a definition for morality at all. It offers no criteria.

I can't imagine a set of moral values and principles that would be accepted worldwide. I suppose the situation is much more problematic now than it used to be, with our modern diverse and multicultural societies.

Very. But acceptance is a separate issue from truth. If morality consists in things that are not consensus-dependent, then it really doesn't change anything whether people do or don't accept them. But if they are purely consensus-dependent, then we're back to the problem that "morality" becomes anything a person can ever desire. And that seems uninformative, to say the least, and potentially permissive of all evil, to speak more precisely.

I think there is a distinction between what might be called personal morality, and social morality,

I'm much more interested in the more basic issue of what qualities a thing must have before we call it "moral," whether it's applied to the personal, the social or the universal.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry. bad was a slip of the fingers. Just ignore the word. I will edit it out.

No problem. Would you be so kind as to rephrase the question itself? I seem to be missing the intention.

OK—what are you going to say next?

I wasn't going to say anything. I didn't understand your objection, and was waiting for clarity, so I could respond.

[Atla]

I think IC has the potential to be intelligent.
His trouble is that his final flield of reference; his final arbiter; and rational measure is a fantasy world.
When you rely on an imaginary friend the only evidence for is a book which ranges between 3000 years old and 1300 years old wirten by disparate and contradictory sources, then you are bound to come across as a little bit idiotic. And IC relies in this fantasy all the time. It is the thing to which all
things are ultimately compared.
This makes him completely useless on a philosphy forum, except as a running joke.

I'd prefer a dumb religious sociopath over an intelligent non-religious sociopath though. One of the reasons Christianity was successful was that it forced an artificial conscience onto the sociopaths and other Cluster B types, decreasing the damage they did to others.

Not particularly relevent. He's only a sociopath because of his theism.
And fuck his "conscience". His morals are disgraceful.

That's where you guys (Harbal, FDP) are very mistaken imo, theism can't erase the conscience so universally from someone, especially not Christianity.
Technically IC's morals can't be disgraceful when he can't have any morals at all. He's trying to behave like he had certain morals, but he's merely following thoughts, not morals.

[Sculptor]

I'd prefer a dumb religious sociopath over an intelligent non-religious sociopath though. One of the reasons Christianity was successful was that it forced an artificial conscience onto the sociopaths and other Cluster B types, decreasing the damage they did to others.

Not particularly relevent. He's only a sociopath because of his theism.
And fuck his "conscience". His morals are disgraceful.

That's where you guys (Harbal, FDP) are very mistaken imo, theism can't erase the conscience so universally from someone, especially not Christianity.
Technically IC's morals can't be disgraceful when he can't have any morals at all. He's trying to behave like he had certain morals, but he's merely following thoughts, not morals.

Though his morals are christian, he is not the worst or most immoral christian moralist.
There are thousands in the US egging on the Gaza genocide to bring about "rapture" and the final solution of Armageddon.
It's not that theism erases a conscience, it is that theism justifies a hateful conscience.

[accelafine]

Someone needs to invest in a good dictionary. 'Genocide' is what so-called 'palestinians' openly want to commit on Jews. It's written into their constitution FFS!

EVERY death in Gaza since the unspeakable horrors of October 7 is at the hands of HAMAS. The fuckwits are 'genociding' themselves (while staying nice and safe in Qatar).

[Alexis Jacobi]

In order to be called moral, meaning ethically right, something must conform to a set of criteria that is deemed to be morally desirable. That in itself imposes no duty on anyone.

Please note that, in your case, and in the case of so many who write on this forum, the notion of a *metaphysical authority* and certainly a *divine authority*, which stands apart from time and being and which has established morals and moral obligations, is not a notion, not a fact, that you can now believe in (and will likely never believe in). So when you converse with IC, as well as with me (and possibly with some others but they do not seem to sound off here with much force or insistence), little and possibly no agreement will ever be possible.

The entire topic of morality, and justice, and social justice, economic justice, as well as the philosophy of right and decent relations between people in civil society, has been and still is largely determined by Christian theology and philosophy. Our entire jurisprudential system is an off-shoot, a development from those times when there was a far greater unity between theological authority and civil authority. The jurisprudential concepts -- laws and law's logics -- were in our cultures established when society was, let's say, ruled by Christian principles. And that does mean, or did mean, the recognition of an authority that determines and determined what is moral and what is not.

At one time that Authority was understood as *real* but now, for many, the entire idea has faded into a sort of shadow. A dim outline of what once was taken as the really real.

The problem in what you have written -- the semantic structure -- is that you can only believe that a morality, or a moral system, or a jurisprudential rule (law, command) must be determined by those who comprise the society. That is to say, by social agreement.

But when there is no, say, structure of morals, nor that *metaphysical basis* which sees, recognizes and conforms to the invisible order (which is what metaphysical order refers to: a set of concepts that are conceived in an invisible realm and which cannot ever be tangible located) the basis of agreement falls apart. There is no recognized and accepted basis for a moral system and, logically, it is left up to each person to make their own decision.

But if that is the case -- if morals becomes the elective choice -- then in truth the only sustaining constraint is law itself. That means the State or municipal authority.

If in a given society the people in it can no longer agree on what morality is and what is moral, then the result is a society where only the legal, municipal authority has the power to define and to punish infractions.

In theological terms -- and in Catholic theological terms (which I study) -- you defend a *naturalist* position. So for example does Iambiguous and many others. But IC, and I as well, defend and try to explain the reasoning behind the *supernaturalist* position. And in my own case the great benefit I have received when I am forced to confront your position, and Iambiguous's, and the general position held by most on this forum, is to be forced to see that there is a conflict that cannot be bridged.

So for example Christian morals and Catholic morals state that it is immoral in a very high degree (a 'mortal sin') to abort a baby. But the reasoning here is not naturalistic but entirely supernaturalistic. The argument against abortion is based solely in a supernaturalistic view of reality. That is, that it is an extreme crime to murder a nascent life. And it is *murder* when the supernatural view is taken as real and determining.

But from a naturalistic perspective there is no metaphysical rule that one violates when one excises that nascent being. And it is left to the choice and the decision of the mother or the couple. If once the state had authority (prohibiting it which it once did) it did so because of recognition of the supernatural right of that nascent life.

Curiously, and I think weirdly, once the notion of metaphysical and divine authority is no longer *believed in*, then all decisions fall back to individuals. And it stands to reason that in our societies that the entire notion of what is *moral* and *immoral* disengages from the very structures that originally defined them. In fact any *morality* is understood to be arbitrary -- simply an expedient choice made by the individual in the moment. There is no *bedrock* and there is no basis for moral rule. What does it come down to then? Vox populi on one side and civil authority (the State) on the other.

But on what basis would they, or will they, make their decisions? Who will determine ultimately what is right and what is wrong?

That in itself imposes no duty on anyone.

In fact I think that what you have said is quite wrong. The criteria establish laws, rules and regulations that must be obeyed (traffic laws, contract law, etc.). And if one believes in the rightness and goodness of those laws then one certainly has a *duty* to obey them because one believes in them.

The area that you disagree with is when the notion of supernaturally-defined laws is brought out as the basis of laws and morality. What you might not understand very well is that when individuals are formed through education to see, understand and believe in those moral precepts that have come into our world through religious authority, that their *duty* is to abide by those rules. And this is what you and so many others simply cannot accept.

The idea that a given society could be or would be oriented to Christian ethics and morality (let's say through democratic processes) and that would set down rules about proper and improper behavior and action, is intolerable to you. And yet oddly it also stands to reason that a given society could be composed of atheists and sheer *naturalists* who would, because their vote would control the education system and civil jurisprudence, set the general rules.

You might not be (enough) aware but this conflict between naturalist and supernaturalist systems of moral thought is playing out starkly today in our own culture. It plays out in rather crude terms but the real structures that stand behind each of the poles has not been sufficiently and clearly defined.

[Sculptor]

Someone needs to invest in a good dictionary. 'Genocide' is what so-called 'palestinians' openly want to commit on Jews. It's written into their constitution FFS!

Well it is their land.

EVERY death in Gaza since the unspeakable horrors of October 7 is at the hands of HAMAS. The fuckwits are 'genociding' themselves (while staying nice and safe in Qatar).

Don't be a moron, and start paying attention.
Israel has killed more of its own hostages that Hamas.
Isreal has more Palestinian hostages than Hamas.
Isreal attacked Palestine first last year.
Netanyahu funded Hamas.
Netanyahu Knew about the attack the deay before and took people off the defenses.
Cut off food, water, power. blocked aim shipments.
Israel has targeted Journalists, Doctors, schools, universities, Aid workers; people defending themselves with flour.
They have turned off baby incubators.
They have tortured doctors and nurses; hogtied them, shot them in the back of the head and buried them under the rubble.

[accelafine]

Someone needs to invest in a good dictionary. 'Genocide' is what so-called 'palestinians' openly want to commit on Jews. It's written into their constitution FFS!

Well it is their land.

EVERY death in Gaza since the unspeakable horrors of October 7 is at the hands of HAMAS. The fuckwits are 'genociding' themselves (while staying nice and safe in Qatar).

Don't be a moron, and start paying attention.
Israel has killed more of its own hostages that Hamas.
Isreal has more Palestinian hostages than Hamas.
Isreal attacked Palestine first last year.
Netanyahu funded Hamas.
Netanyahu Knew about the attack the deay before and took people off the defenses.
Cut off food, water, power. blocked aim shipments.
Israel has targeted Journalists, Doctors, schools, universities, Aid workers; people defending themselves with flour.
They have turned off baby incubators.
They have tortured doctors and nurses; hogtied them, shot them in the back of the head and buried them under the rubble.

There is no such place as 'Palestine'.

The rest isn't worth responding to. Why are you complaining about Israel giving financial aid to the govt. of Gaza? FFS. There's no pleasing you Jew-haters. Go back to your Jew-hating conspiracytard websites like a good boy.

You are very selective about what you present as 'facts'. The only undisputed FACT is what those fucking monster shit-stains did on Oct. 7!

[Sculptor]

Someone needs to invest in a good dictionary. 'Genocide' is what so-called 'palestinians' openly want to commit on Jews. It's written into their constitution FFS!

Well it is their land.

EVERY death in Gaza since the unspeakable horrors of October 7 is at the hands of HAMAS. The fuckwits are 'genociding' themselves (while staying nice and safe in Qatar).

Don't be a moron, and start paying attention.
Israel has killed more of its own hostages that Hamas.
Isreal has more Palestinian hostages than Hamas.
Isreal attacked Palestine first last year.
Netanyahu funded Hamas.
Netanyahu Knew about the attack the deay before and took people off the defenses.
Cut off food, water, power. blocked aim shipments.
Israel has targeted Journalists, Doctors, schools, universities, Aid workers; people defending themselves with flour.
They have turned off baby incubators.
They have tortured doctors and nurses; hogtied them, shot them in the back of the head and buried them under the rubble.

There is no such place as 'Palestine'.

Are you Jewish?

[accelafine]

Well it is their land.

Don't be a moron, and start paying attention.
Israel has killed more of its own hostages that Hamas.
Isreal has more Palestinian hostages than Hamas.
Isreal attacked Palestine first last year.
Netanyahu funded Hamas.
Netanyahu Knew about the attack the deay before and took people off the defenses.
Cut off food, water, power. blocked aim shipments.
Israel has targeted Journalists, Doctors, schools, universities, Aid workers; people defending themselves with flour.
They have turned off baby incubators.
They have tortured doctors and nurses; hogtied them, shot them in the back of the head and buried them under the rubble.

There is no such place as 'Palestine'.

Are you Jewish?

Are you muslim?