What is morality?

[MikeNovack]

I get what you are arguing. Do you get that what you are arguing is fallacious?

Genetic fallacy. That does not show that "the way they were raised" is "right."

Again you are imagining I am saying "the classifications of actions into "right" and "wrong" as made by a society are CORRECT judged by some other society" and/or some notion of absolute rightness and wrongness". I am saying nothing of the sort.

I do not believe you would claim "the way they were raised to understand some things are right and some wrong" (that the CATEGORIES "right" and "wrong" exist/are real) is incorrect. Or that they ought to do the "right" thing" and not do the"wrong" thing.

I am not (yet) to the point of discussing how actions get into which bucket or claiming that any particular assignment is "correct". That comes AFTER determining "morality exists" (which you claim the secularist cannot base on anything).

PREVIEW --- When/if we do get that far, discussing "how assigned", I will be countering your "comes from God as delivered by the text" with asking you about a situation and choices NOT seeming to match anything in the book << are you going to argue "then not a moral matter" >>

[Immanuel Can]

I do not believe you would claim "the way they were raised to understand some things are right and some wrong" (that the CATEGORIES "right" and "wrong" exist/are real) is incorrect.

Those categories have no explanation in the worldview of secularism. They can be thought to exist in Judaism's lights, in Christianity's, and in various other places, though; just not in secularism. Secularism is premised on no beliefs capable of justifying a single moral claim.

So the question, "Does morality exist," has to be answered "no," by the secularist, and perhaps "yes," by others. But this also answers the fundamental question of the thread, "What is morality?" For the secularist, it's nothing. It's an illusion some people prefer, but nobody has justification to believe is real.

However, no secularist lives as if that's true.

Now what?

[MikeNovack]

Those categories have no explanation in the worldview of secularism. They can be thought to exist in Judaism's lights, in Christianity's, and in various other places, though; just not in secularism. Secularism is premised on no beliefs capable of justifying a single moral claim.

So the question, "Does morality exist," has to be answered "no," by the secularist, and perhaps "yes," by others. But this also answers the fundamental question of the thread, "What is morality?" For the secularist, it's nothing. It's an illusion some people prefer, but nobody has justification to believe is real.

Disagree -- the secularist believes "morality exists" because raised as a human. You are confusing this with the rationalist believing he/she has a rational method of placing choices of action into the correct category. However, as I will point out, you as a believer are in the same fix for any triplet situation/action one/action two where this particular triplet does not match anything in your God given text. You both (you and the secularist) believe a correct assignment exists but not what it is. << you MIGHT believe no such triplet exists, that there could be none where your religion does not provide guidance --- I disagree >> Resume when I get back after the holiday weekend.

[Immanuel Can]

Those categories have no explanation in the worldview of secularism. They can be thought to exist in Judaism's lights, in Christianity's, and in various other places, though; just not in secularism. Secularism is premised on no beliefs capable of justifying a single moral claim.

So the question, "Does morality exist," has to be answered "no," by the secularist, and perhaps "yes," by others. But this also answers the fundamental question of the thread, "What is morality?" For the secularist, it's nothing. It's an illusion some people prefer, but nobody has justification to believe is real.

Disagree -- the secularist believes "morality exists" because raised as a human.

Most do, in fact: but not by any logic they can derive from their secularism. Their creed denies the possiblity of morality, but inside, they know their creed is false. They still have a conscience, even when they try to find every reason to extinguish its demands on them.

And not for the reason you suggest. "Because raised as human" would explain why they were subject to acculturation, indoctrination and deception, perhaps; it would not turn that acculturation, indoctrination or deception into a justified morality.

[popeye1945]

"There is no such thing as right or wrong; only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

"There is only right or wrong for man; to god, all things are right and good. Hericiltious

[Immanuel Can]

"There is no such thing as right or wrong; only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

Not a generalization, and not guidance for us. Hamlet (2:2) is asking his friends if they like Denmark, not if they believe in good and evil.

[MikeNovack]

And not for the reason you suggest. "Because raised as human" would explain why they were subject to acculturation, indoctrination and deception, perhaps; it would not turn that acculturation, indoctrination or deception into a justified morality.

Why do you consider it "indoctrination/deception" that you were taught/internalized taking a dump n the corner of the room was wrong/disgusting. Or to wear some sort of clothing, speak a language, etc. Exactly what sort of clothing, that's "indoctrination", what particular language, etc.

The rationalist WOULD consider the particular assignments to be "indoctrination". It s only "right and wrong exist as categories, morality EXISTS" that the rationalist would say "because raised as a human". The rationalist is NOT going to give the reason "because human' for why speaking French as opposed to German, why wearing a skirt or why trousers.

[Immanuel Can]

And not for the reason you suggest. "Because raised as human" would explain why they were subject to acculturation, indoctrination and deception, perhaps; it would not turn that acculturation, indoctrination or deception into a justified morality.

Why do you consider it "indoctrination/deception"...

I don't. I'm just saying that that is all your argument would give us reason to believe. In other words, it's not a good argument.

[MikeNovack]

IC, this MIGHT help you understand why I am differentiating between saying "because human" explains morality exists and choices/action get classified right/wrong AND the particular assignments (which the secularist will say just social convention/indoctrination and not necessarily "moral")

To do this I will use the text you consider be all and end all.

Back to the Garden. After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (the morality tree) Adam and Eve "knew they were naked and that this as wrong". They made clothes to cover themselves out of leaves. Following God telling them the consequences of their eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, God made clothes for them of animal skins.

Is THAT "moral"? Are clothes made of vegetable matter "wrong" and made of animal skins "right"? Or is the moral part JUST "cover yourself with clothes" and the choice of vegetable matter (cloth, for example) or skins (leather, for example) not a moral matter?

Because THAT is precisely what I see you objecting to with the "comes from being human" argument, that the secularist must (but canot) further provide a moral reason for the PARTICULAR way the society has adopted to fulfill the general moral situation.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, this MIGHT help you understand why I am differentiating between saying "because human" explains morality exists and choices/action get classified right/wrong AND the particular assignments (which the secularist will say just social convention/indoctrination and not necessarily "moral")

I'm not having any problem understanding your argument at all. In fact, I understand it so well that I can point out to you that it has a hole so big in it that you could drive a truck through it.

You've arbitrarily given moral status to a mere fact, the fact of "being human," and presumed some duty flows from that mere fact. But it's not at all obvious why it would.

To do this I will use the text you consider be all and end all.

That would be irrelevant to your answer. Your answer does not require that text to be true, or authoritative, or even serious. In fact, it assumes it's not. So to criticize it would be, at most an et tu quoque fallacy, not a proper argument. Even if all Theistic answers were also wrong, it would not do one thing to patch up the defect in the reasoning you supplied.

[FlashDangerpants]

You don't get what I am arguing.
1) No, not "some people believe in a thing called morality". More ALL HUMANS believe/feel some things are right to do and some things wrong to do, That the CLASSIFICATION "right"/"wrong" is rel/exists, and this is so because they were raised as humans.

The problem isn't that people don't get your argument. The problem is that's a totally shit argument, and only you don't get it.

Even if you did beat IC with it - a nothing achievement if ever there was one - it still fails to address or to understand any of the basic questions of moral philosophy. And arguing with IC about this stuff won't help as he is himself only very slightly less ignorant on the matter than you. You are both blundering about in territory for which you have no map and neither of you has the wit to wonder if you are making avoidable errors. The best either of you can do is point to the plank in the other guy's eye.

I can provide you some links to helpful Youtube content that would help you to help yourself, and if you avail yourself, you should at least arrive at a less self-defeating basis for your own position than the one you currently occupy.

I would suggest this relatively long-form starter which explains the most important anti-realist moral argument of the last half century or so. It's relatively simple, IC wouldn't understand it so there's not much point discussing it with him I'm afraid.
KaneB - The Queerness Argument Against Moral Realism

To discuss the only anti-realist position IC is capable of imagining, you must lower yourself to AJ Ayer's simplified Boo-Hooray Emotivism which is discussed by a good source here: J Kaplan - A.J. Ayer's Emotivist Theory of Moral Language

If you want to look at moral realist positions not derived from silly divine command theories like IC's position, which would be broadly in line with something you seem to be trying to do, but much less clumsy, perhaps you should consider a neo-Kantian argument such as is provided by Christine Korsgaard. Here's one of her lectures covering a very Mister Can adjacent set of questions about duty, except handled by an actual human being of actual learning. Christine Korsgaard, "Interacting with Animals: A Kantian Account"

And if you want pointers on how to derive your moral realist position from science (ish) then Cornell Realism may offer a helping hand: KaneB - Moral Naturalism 2: Cornell Realism. I am not a fan of CR, and I will admit Ihave linked you to a video by one of its detractors. I consider that a helpful shortcut, and his treatment equal-handed enough not be a concern.

[popeye1945]

"There is no such thing as right or wrong; only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

Not a generalization, and not guidance for us. Hamlet (2:2) is asking his friends if they like Denmark, not if they believe in good and evil.

Actually, it is a generalization and a truism. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject. There is only meaning to life forms; the physical world in and of itself is meaningless. Meaning is how the physical world alters the biology of conscious subjects as experiences/meanings

[Immanuel Can]

"There is no such thing as right or wrong; only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

Not a generalization, and not guidance for us. Hamlet (2:2) is asking his friends if they like Denmark, not if they believe in good and evil.

Actually, it is a generalization and a truism.

Not by Shakespeare. Maybe by yourself, it's a generalization. But it's certainly not a "truism."

There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject.

This is backward. The things that are in the world, and indeed, the world itself, are contingent beings. That means that they aren't necessarily only the way they are; they could have been otherwise than they are. They're also temporal, which means they begin and perish within time. And as such, they are not capable of being the meaning of their own existence, nor can a conscious being that appears only after-the-fact of their existence assign them a meaning that is objective or true. If they have a meaning, it's given by something that creates these contingent, temporal entities -- or they have none at all, and the pronouncements of "conscious beings" that happen after that are not meanings in any binding, truthful or inherent sense at all.

Human beings are also contingent and temporal. They cannot be the source of their own meaning, anymore than the physical world can.

[popeye1945]

Not a generalization, and not guidance for us. Hamlet (2:2) is asking his friends if they like Denmark, not if they believe in good and evil.

Actually, it is a generalization and a truism.

Not by Shakespeare. Maybe by yourself, it's a generalization. But it's certainly not a "truism."

There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject.

This is backward. The things that are in the world, and indeed, the world itself, are contingent beings. That means that they aren't necessarily only the way they are; they could have been otherwise than they are. They're also temporal, which means they begin and perish within time. And as such, they are not capable of being the meaning of their own existence, nor can a conscious being that appears only after-the-fact of their existence assign them a meaning that is objective or true. If they have a meaning, it's given by something that creates these contingent, temporal entities -- or they have none at all, and the pronouncements of "conscious beings" that happen after that are not meanings in any binding, truthful or inherent sense at all.

Human beings are also contingent and temporal. They cannot be the source of their own meaning, anymore than the physical world can.

Life forms are the only source of meaning in the world. Life forms, conscious beings, do not experience reality; they experience how reality atlers/changes the standing state of their biology. So, instead of experiencing reality, what the conscious subject experiences is their altered bodies, and this is deemed experience, and experience is meaning; the experience/meaning is then projected outwardly onto a meaningless world as if it really did have meaning. However, it's the meaningless energies that surround us that play upon our biology as if we were its instruments. What the energies play upon us as their instruments is what people call their apparent reality, their everyday reality. All things are temporal, but this fact does not speak of meaning. Meaning is a biological process; it is the expression of sensed experiences judged meaningful. Meanings are meaningful only to the biological subjects that experience these alterations of their standing state of biology, which makes apparent reality a biological readout. A readout specific to the individual as an individual but also as a species, for varying species have some strikingly different apparent realities. The field of creation/universe, if you like, is not in need of meaning; it is a meaningless process eternal in its infinity. That which arises in temporal form dissolves back into the field of possibilities. There is only meaning for living forms, period.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, it is a generalization and a truism.

Not by Shakespeare. Maybe by yourself, it's a generalization. But it's certainly not a "truism."

There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject.

This is backward. The things that are in the world, and indeed, the world itself, are contingent beings. That means that they aren't necessarily only the way they are; they could have been otherwise than they are. They're also temporal, which means they begin and perish within time. And as such, they are not capable of being the meaning of their own existence, nor can a conscious being that appears only after-the-fact of their existence assign them a meaning that is objective or true. If they have a meaning, it's given by something that creates these contingent, temporal entities -- or they have none at all, and the pronouncements of "conscious beings" that happen after that are not meanings in any binding, truthful or inherent sense at all.

Human beings are also contingent and temporal. They cannot be the source of their own meaning, anymore than the physical world can.

Life forms are the only source of meaning in the world.

As I've already pointed out, that's impossible if all the life forms that exist are temporal and contingent...as secularism insists.

experience is meaning

Amoebas experience things. Are you suggesting that amoebas therefore must be generators of meaning? If so, it seems you've dropped your definition of "meaning" to something so low it's meaningless.

What "meaning" would you say an amoeba experiences? Let's be specific.