BDM - It's not a sex thing

[attofishpi]

The reason why a Humean type of moral explanation explains motivation so readily is because it is compatible with the BDM model (there are other names such as BDI, BDR.): The Belief Desire model of Motivation/Reason/Intention. Basically this is just the common sense, folk-psychology view of how we are motivated to do things that we believe will match our desires.

So do you believe that human desires are what our ethical considerations should consider primarily, since they are the greatest driving force?

You obviously haven't read Ch2 or Ch3. Also you should be aware that I am working on a descriptive account of how moral reasoning works IRL, not (or at least not yet) some idealised perfected alternative to that.

I sped read it, at some point last night. If I am failing somewhere I am certain you will point it out.

If you feel there are some points in Ch2\3 that need to be explained, please do - certainly a copy n paste won't take much effort.

I have disagreements with you pertaining to judgements that can be made regarding ethical\moral standards - you seem to think (and I am certain you will correct me if wrong) that there is no way of, for example a culture\society to consider itself superior to others - ethically\morally?

[FlashDangerpants]

So do you believe that human desires are what our ethical considerations should consider primarily, since they are the greatest driving force?

You obviously haven't read Ch2 or Ch3. Also you should be aware that I am working on a descriptive account of how moral reasoning works IRL, not (or at least not yet) some idealised perfected alternative to that.

I sped read it, at some point last night. If I am failing somewhere I am certain you will point it out.

You were drunk last night and spouting absurd nonsense about unparalleled reasoning skills. You were in no condition to comprehend, so put down your morning beer and do it properly.

Even sober, none of the people who content themselves to speed read philosophy ever demonstrates much of an understanding of what they've read. Speed reading is only useful if you do it ahead of circling back to read properly.

If you feel there are some points in Ch2\3 that need to be explained, please do - certainly a copy n paste won't take much effort.

Go look at what you said you were doing in that accord post. Do that, or fail to do it.

I have disagreements with you pertaining to judgements that can be made regarding ethical\moral standards - you seem to think (and I am certain you will correct me if wrong) that there is no way of, for example a culture\society to consider itself superior to others - ethically\morally?

You don't put in any effort to understand, and you demand spoon feeding of extreme basics. You don't know what you are disagreeing with and you don't pay any attention anyway. It's you that has expressed moral relativism not me. Moral relativism is what undermines claims of cultural moral superiority, which means you are arguing against yourself. All I did was point that out. I told you already that the price of realitivism is that you don't get to make those judgments of superiority, and I pointed out already that it's a price you seemed unlikely to want to pay, all you are doing now is proving how much smarter I am than you.

Within this discussion about Ch1 of my special magnum masterwork of amazingness I will not be adopting positions that are not substantiated by Ch1 of my extra special wonderwork. Ch1 of my fantastic monster of giant reason doesn't support conclusion of the sort that you project upon me. You would understand if you had ever read a philosophy book that was divided into chapters, this is the normal way to work.

[attofishpi]

I have disagreements with you pertaining to judgements that can be made regarding ethical\moral standards - you seem to think (and I am certain you will correct me if wrong) that there is no way of, for example a culture\society to consider itself superior to others - ethically\morally?

You don't put in any effort to understand, and you demand spoon feeding of extreme basics. You don't know what you are disagreeing with and you don't pay any attention anyway.

I am certain I am disagreeing with your interpretation of how a society can evaluate its ethical\moral standing (among others).

WIKI: Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behaviour of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

..so thus far, no I don't hold myself to "Normative moral relativism"

Seems Moral relativism has so many forms as to be ridiculous. Have you picked one for me?

It's you that has expressed moral relativism not me.

No, it was you that stated from my comments that I am detailing some alignment with "moral relativism"

Moral relativism is what undermines claims of cultural moral superiority, which means you are arguing against yourself. All I did was point that out.

..are you sure, there appears to be a myriad of its forms:

1. Cultural Relativism
2. Individual Relativism (Subjectivism)
3. Moral Pluralism
4. Descriptive Relativism
5. Metaethical Relativism
6. Epistemic Relativism
7. Historical Relativism
8. Normative Relativism (the one I mentioned above - not me)

I told you already that the price of realitivism is that you don't get to make those judgments of superiority, and I pointed out already that it's a price you seemed unlikely to want to pay, all you are doing now is proving how much smarter I am than you.

Really? All you are doing is applying a label to me "moral relativism" and stating that I MUST ACCEPT that "judgments of superiority" - a daft statement, I'd prefer "judgements of greater ethical standards" are not permitted.

Since you are stating that you have thus proven that you have assessed an actual degree to which you are "much smarter" than me - then prove it.

That is to say, prove that relativism requires one to discount any assessment of degrees of ethical standards?

[FlashDangerpants]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

This single statement ensures there is no standard by which to assert that one set of moral values is superioir to another if the other asserts the same in reverse.

If you want to do some bullshit claimiong otherwsie that is fine. Open up your own thread for it. I will cheerfully criticise you there on that topic, it will make a change from whatever tedious shit VA is flinging around.

I don't care which sort of relativist you end up becoming, that's a path for you to walk. But unless you find a way to make meaningful judgments depite the absence of objective value, you are kind of there. There's alternatives, but they are all much too complicated for you.

[attofishpi]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

This single statement ensures there is no standard by which to assert that one set of moral values is superioir to another if the other asserts the same in reverse.

Well before I address that..(after further research into OBJECTIVE value pertaining to ethics, I am not certain about my statement above)

Do you believe there is any objective truth within ethics and morality?

[FlashDangerpants]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

This single statement ensures there is no standard by which to assert that one set of moral values is superioir to another if the other asserts the same in reverse.

Well before I address that..(after further research into OBJECTIVE value pertaining to ethics, I am not certain about my statement above)

Do you believe there is any objective truth within ethics and morality?

This is Ch1. That's a Ch27 question.

[attofishpi]

This single statement ensures there is no standard by which to assert that one set of moral values is superioir to another if the other asserts the same in reverse.

Well before I address that..(after further research into OBJECTIVE value pertaining to ethics, I am not certain about my statement above)

Do you believe there is any objective truth within ethics and morality?

This is Ch1. That's a Ch27 question.

Certainly it all appears to remain subjective but that still does not discount a valuation level, a degree of ethical standards that can be agreed upon by consensus civilised society.

Thus I still hold, that I can assess various cultures and their practices\laws around the world and although subjective, can value one as having a higher ethical standard than another.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well before I address that..(after further research into OBJECTIVE value pertaining to ethics, I am not certain about my statement above)

Do you believe there is any objective truth within ethics and morality?

This is Ch1. That's a Ch27 question.

Certainly it all appears to remain subjective but that still does not discount a valuation level, a degree of ethical standards that can be agreed upon by consensus civilised society.

Some sort of bandwagon to clamber on?
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Thus I still hold, that I can assess various cultures and their practices\laws around the world and although subjective, can value one as having a higher ethical standard than another.

Sure. You can have a little diary under your pillow and open it up and write "muslims are really bad people" whenever you feel sad if it makes you feel better. May as well leave it there though, it's unimportant to the world, the universe, humanity, and your dog.

[attofishpi]

This is Ch1. That's a Ch27 question.

Certainly it all appears to remain subjective but that still does not discount a valuation level, a degree of ethical standards that can be agreed upon by consensus civilised society.

Some sort of bandwagon to clamber on?

You point being what? That the more intelligent\advanced societies don't develop their best shared ethical standards that the people (on the bandwagon) agree to - vote for?

Thus I still hold, that I can assess various cultures and their practices\laws around the world and although subjective, can value one as having a higher ethical standard than another.

Sure. You can have a little diary under your pillow and open it up and write "muslims are really bad people" whenever you feel sad if it makes you feel better. May as well leave it there though, it's unimportant to the world, the universe, humanity, and your dog.

It's not some Muslims fault that they have read more of their Koran, including the instructions that we infidels must convert to their ideology\beliefs or be killed/have our heads chopped off. Is that ethical?

So what argument do you have that the average Islamic country that has Sharia Law is of a higher degree of ethical standards than that of the (current) UK?

You don't ---> and your out is "it's all relative man!!" "who are we to judge?"

[FlashDangerpants]

Certainly it all appears to remain subjective but that still does not discount a valuation level, a degree of ethical standards that can be agreed upon by consensus civilised society.

Some sort of bandwagon to clamber on?

You point being what? That the more intelligent\advanced societies don't develop their best shared ethical standards that the people (on the bandwagon) agree to - vote for?

I already gave you a link to a page that explains bandwagon fallacy because you are committing bandwagon fallacy.

Thus I still hold, that I can assess various cultures and their practices\laws around the world and although subjective, can value one as having a higher ethical standard than another.

Sure. You can have a little diary under your pillow and open it up and write "muslims are really bad people" whenever you feel sad if it makes you feel better. May as well leave it there though, it's unimportant to the world, the universe, humanity, and your dog.

It's not some Muslims fault that they have read more of their Koran, including the instructions that we infidels must convert to their ideology\beliefs or be killed/have our heads chopped off. Is that ethical?

So what argument do you have that the average Islamic country that has Sharia Law is of a higher degree of ethical standards than that of the (current) UK?

Pay attention to what I am writing instead of geting on your high horse. I was explaining why the claim of "higher" ethical standards is not worth the paper you write your little curses on if there is no objective yardstick to measure such height against.

You are trying too hard to get personal and I have explained many times that in this thread I am only willing to do conversations relevant to the OP. That ties in with the commitment you made in your "accord". You are not holding up your end of that, but you are only letting yourself down, I didn't think you were up to it anyway.

You don't ---> and your out is "it's all relative man!!" "who are we to judge?"

Unless you have given up officially on your prior assertion that there are no objective values, then that is a requirement of your own position. My position is not, and could not possibly be, discussed in Ch1 of the grand masterwork, so it is not getting discussed here.

If you are still on that bandwagon fallacy by the time you read this, you are either not clever enough to be doing this conversation, or you are already drunk yet again.

[attofishpi]

Some sort of bandwagon to clamber on?

You point being what? That the more intelligent\advanced societies don't develop their best shared ethical standards that the people (on the bandwagon) agree to - vote for?

I already gave you a link to a page that explains bandwagon fallacy because you are committing bandwagon fallacy.

Democracy and people's consensus vote for what is ethical within law is no fallacy.

Sure. You can have a little diary under your pillow and open it up and write "muslims are really bad people" whenever you feel sad if it makes you feel better. May as well leave it there though, it's unimportant to the world, the universe, humanity, and your dog.

It's not some Muslims fault that they have read more of their Koran, including the instructions that we infidels must convert to their ideology\beliefs or be killed/have our heads chopped off. Is that ethical?

So what argument do you have that the average Islamic country that has Sharia Law is of a higher degree of ethical standards than that of the (current) UK?

Pay attention to what I am writing instead of geting on your high horse. I was explaining why the claim of "higher" ethical standards is not worth the paper you write your little curses on if there is no objective yardstick to measure such height against.

You are trying too hard to get personal and I have explained many times that in this thread I am only willing to do conversations relevant to the OP. That ties in with the commitment you made in your "accord". You are not holding up your end of that, but you are only letting yourself down, I didn't think you were up to it anyway.

AND YET IT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT THE MUSLIMS INTO IT!!! - oh the irony.

You don't ---> and your out is "it's all relative man!!" "who are we to judge?"

Unless you have given up officially on your prior assertion that there are no objective values, then that is a requirement of your own position. My position is not, and could not possibly be, discussed in Ch1 of the grand masterwork, so it is not getting discussed here.

If you are still on that bandwagon fallacy by the time you read this, you are either not clever enough to be doing this conversation, or you are already drunk yet again.

I'm off to bed. Read again what I stated, that what you insist is a "fallacy" is NOT a fallacy: Democracy and people's consensus vote for what is ethical within law is no fallacy.

[FlashDangerpants]

You point being what? That the more intelligent\advanced societies don't develop their best shared ethical standards that the people (on the bandwagon) agree to - vote for?

I already gave you a link to a page that explains bandwagon fallacy because you are committing bandwagon fallacy.

Democracy and people's consensus vote for what is ethical within law is no fallacy.

Democracy is a political institution and its existence doesn't answer any questions at all about "objective truth within ethics and morality".

It's not some Muslims fault that they have read more of their Koran, including the instructions that we infidels must convert to their ideology\beliefs or be killed/have our heads chopped off. Is that ethical?

So what argument do you have that the average Islamic country that has Sharia Law is of a higher degree of ethical standards than that of the (current) UK?

Pay attention to what I am writing instead of geting on your high horse. I was explaining why the claim of "higher" ethical standards is not worth the paper you write your little curses on if there is no objective yardstick to measure such height against.

You are trying too hard to get personal and I have explained many times that in this thread I am only willing to do conversations relevant to the OP. That ties in with the commitment you made in your "accord". You are not holding up your end of that, but you are only letting yourself down, I didn't think you were up to it anyway.

AND YET IT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT THE MUSLIMS INTO IT!!! - oh the irony.

That's not ironic. You are just too drunk or too stupid to follow a train of argument without getting distracted by your obsessive hatred for one specific religion. Follow the logic of the argument if you are able to mister "most find my reasoning skills unparalleled"

You don't ---> and your out is "it's all relative man!!" "who are we to judge?"

Unless you have given up officially on your prior assertion that there are no objective values, then that is a requirement of your own position. My position is not, and could not possibly be, discussed in Ch1 of the grand masterwork, so it is not getting discussed here.

If you are still on that bandwagon fallacy by the time you read this, you are either not clever enough to be doing this conversation, or you are already drunk yet again.

I'm off to bed. Read again what I stated, that what you insist is a "fallacy" is NOT a fallacy: Democracy and people's consensus vote for what is ethical within law is no fallacy.

You don't understandthe first thing about moral philosophy. But if you are actually now saying that everything that is law within a democratic society is therefore morally correct due to consensus, I will be forced to mock you very heavily for an unreasonably long time.

[Skepdick]

You don't understandthe first thing about moral philosophy.

You don't understand the first thing about philosophy so you are square, methinks?

But if you are actually now saying that everything that is law within a democratic society is therefore morally correct due to consensus

If nobody in a democratic society is objecting to; challenging; or otherwise opposing any law within a democratic society where they have the means to do so.

If there appears to be a tacit consensus, no dissent or challenge to any given law (not even about its mandate, limits of applicability or judgments in accord with such law) - what would it even mean for such a law to be "morally incorrect"?

Would you then defend the contrarian position and invent a dissenting view just because... philosophy?

I will be forced to mock you very heavily for an unreasonably long time.

I am still waiting for a reason to stop mocking you.

[attofishpi]

I already gave you a link to a page that explains bandwagon fallacy because you are committing bandwagon fallacy.

Democracy and people's consensus vote for what is ethical within law is no fallacy.

Democracy is a political institution and its existence doesn't answer any questions at all about "objective truth within ethics and morality".

But we are not talking about "objective truth within ethics and morality"..

As far as I am concerned we are talking about: "subjective truth within ethics and morality" ..with my current argument being that within an advanced civilised society where democracy enables consensus voting to define and implement laws, that levels of standards in the area of ethics and morality can be established. That is then to say, that it's these standards can be compared to other societies around the world since subjective truth within ethics and morality, HAS VALUE. (we get to keep our 'yardstick')

Pay attention to what I am writing instead of geting on your high horse. I was explaining why the claim of "higher" ethical standards is not worth the paper you write your little curses on if there is no objective yardstick to measure such height against.

And I am stating that one needs no "objective" yardstick, that the subjective yardstick will have to be settled upon. So per my argument above, I think we should keep the paper that the laws consensus subjective opinions have put in place, in there place until consensus subjective opinions change in time - for example, some people are pushing that men can claim to be women and want law to be put in place we must address them by whatever pronouns they decide upon - nonsense by any yardstick, but consensus subjective opinions with the power to vote may indeed bring something I disagree with into law within my society.

AND YET IT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT THE MUSLIMS INTO IT!!! - oh the irony.

That's not ironic. You are just too drunk or too stupid to follow a train of argument without getting distracted by your obsessive hatred for one specific religion.

..and again, the irony - that you're the one that brought the MUSLIMS into your own thread conversation!! (I'm starting to think you aren't too bright )

Follow the logic of the argument if you are able to mister "most find my reasoning skills unparalleled"

Ah!! You've already found a use for that quote, but don't forget the most important part - the bit that followed on the end: "I tend to fuck with their preconceived ideas"

Our little chat here is proving that, case in point.

You don't understandthe first thing about moral philosophy. But if you are actually now saying that everything that is law within a democratic society is therefore morally correct due to consensus, I will be forced to mock you very heavily for an unreasonably long time.

..but read above, I gave an example of where NOT everything that is law (or at least, some want to be law) within a democratic society is therefore morally correct due to consensus..that was never my argument that it is ALWAYS going to be correct (according to my own SUBJECTIVE opinion(s)).

Where we have to agree that ethics, your "moral philosophy" must be settled as mere subjective opinion, that does not permit a "yardstick" to be thrown out as you have been asserting, insisting.

[FlashDangerpants]

...

You are wasting my time. Here's a copy and paste from a previous answer to the same junk.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.


Until I see something from you that merits new text, reheats is is all you deserve.