What is morality?

[MikeNovack]

All you're saying is that he was trained. Every child is. But when they come of age, and they can begin to ask "Why?" then that goes out the window. Either you give them sufficient reasons so that they come to believe it themselves, or they have no reason to believe it any more.

REALLY? You really believe that? You think the trained in sense of right and wrong instilled during your toilet training could easily be overridden by rationality?

TRY IT ---- Not that hard to clean up afterwards if you rationally lay down a sheet of plastic first. There's no RATIONAL reason not to put that sheet of plastic on the floor, drop trousers, squat, and take a dump. I am not saying you won't be able to do this but I am saying rationality will not prevent very strong feelings of THIS IS WRONG.

[Immanuel Can]

All you're saying is that he was trained. Every child is. But when they come of age, and they can begin to ask "Why?" then that goes out the window. Either you give them sufficient reasons so that they come to believe it themselves, or they have no reason to believe it any more.

You think the trained in sense of right and wrong instilled during your toilet training could easily be overridden by rationality?

Well, you're being a bit silly here. "Toilet training" is not a synonym for "training." It's only one kind, and of a very limited and scatalogical kind, obviously. But you knew that, which is why you tried the reductio ad absurdum here.

No social training is "easily" overcome, of course. But it certainly can be overcome, and everybody does, to one extent of another. If you think you're never going to get asked "Why," you should try raising a child...or a teenager. I promise you, you'll find they are quite capable of questioning whatever training you've imposed on them.

So what is the answer to WHY a child should follow your morality? Can you give a rational explanation of moral duty? Or do you have to resort to forcing it by way of power?

[MikeNovack]

Ah, I think you are wanting duty to do double duty.

I understand the concept of deontology ethics. So would agree if you are using it would make sense to think (and ask me to support)
"it is one's duty to do the moral (right) thing". But I see you saying "x" is the right thing to do because "x" is a duty. With the first, that becomes circular.

The logic DOES go from "it is a duty to do the right thing", "x is a right thing", therefore conclude "x is a duty". But it doesn't work in reverse "it is a duty to do the right thing", "x is a duty", therefore conclude "x is a right thing" << that works if there are no sorts of duties other than ones connected to morality >>

I think we need to look at:
A) What is morality for ---- I would argue that it is for choosing among alternative choices of action in situations. And that it applies at the moment when the choice must be made << thus I would rule out consequentialism as bearing on morality >>
B) Are right and wrong binary ---- I would argue that there are rarely only two possible actions and even when we are considering just two, rather than right vs wrong we need to think better vs worse << there are usually other choices even better and others worse even if not immediately available to the chooser.
C) In REAL situations where we are to make a moral decision between alternatives is is unlikely that we would have previously rationally considered exactly this situation and these alternatives. Luckily our brains, being neural nets, are well equipped to deal with this.You can think of as similar to interpolation. But even though X (situation, alternative1, alterntive2) and Y might have rational explanation, that interpolation as done by a neural net is opaque.
As an experience, we would just know that result/choice was correct, felt correct, etc.