personhood

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not in any way denying that no reality stands behind the belief, the not-reality is the entire....point.

Then you're an amoralist.

But you say you're not. You say you still believe in morality, though you also believe there is nothing real behind it.

So I want to know one simple thing:

"How"?

We still live in a society (nothing "real" is behind that but there you go), and in our society we have many aspects of life behind which there is nothing eternal and unchanging. We have jobs with no supernatural realness, but we go to work, we have all sorts of rituals and customs which we participate in despite there being nothing celestial to make it actually true on behalf of the universe that this is the year 2020 or that there must be a country called Belgium, or that the Mona Lisa is great art but that thing your kid drew and you dutifully stuck to the fridge is less so.

These are human derived activities, none of them needs a higher truth for us to participate in them, and none of them needs to be exactly the same everywhere, which is possibly part of the reason why they are not. Not being the same everywhere does not make them random, or meaningless, or useless.

Do you think there's a magic pixie that makes it "true" that everybody should drive their car on the left side of the road, or is it arbitrary convention that everybody participates in because they find it useful? What should we do with the heretics who drive on the same side as the dirty yanks, just report them to the pixie and let him sort it out with his magic death rays?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not in any way denying that no reality stands behind the belief, the not-reality is the entire....point.

Then you're an amoralist.

But you say you're not. You say you still believe in morality, though you also believe there is nothing real behind it.

So I want to know one simple thing:

"How"?

We still live in a society (nothing "real" is behind that but there you go),

What do you mean "nothing real"? There are people, a culture, a constitution, laws, geography, language(s), history...a whole lot of empirical stuff "behind" a society. So it's not obvious, whatever you mean.

We have jobs with no supernatural realness,

But they all have natural realism. The engineer who builds no bridges isn't an engineer. The doctor who never entertains a patient is not a doctor for long. The artist who never paints isn't an artist at all...and so on.

But you're a moral anti-realist. You can't fall back on the equivalent, because you insist there is no realism at all to ethics.

These are human derived activities, none of them needs a higher truth for us to participate in them,

Well, nobody even suggested that one had to have "higher truth" in order to "participate" in anything. You can "participate" in the delusion that you're a leprechaun. It doesn't make it true or justifiable.

So far, your argument seems to be no more than, "Well, people will continue to follow morals, so we don't have to justify any." And if that's all it is, that's a pretty sad little argument there. It would rationalize ANYBODY doing ANYTHING. It would have zero to do with people who were behaving realistically or following any logic.

Not being the same everywhere does not make them random, or meaningless, or useless.

Nobody said any of the above. The problem is not just that they are "different," but that they are, in many cases, actually "opposed." So now you're falling back on cultural relativism? That's even thinner as an answer. It means you'd have to accept that if Southern Democrats in the 1800s believed in slavery, slavery was good. Or that if Saudis believe in beating women, then beating women is good...at least, for Sauids.

Do you think there's a magic pixie that makes it "true" that everybody should drive their car on the left side of the road, or is it arbitrary convention that everybody participates in because they find it useful?

There are plenty of arbitrary conventions, but most of them have zero to do with morality. Nobody even suggests that how you comb your hair, or on what date you stop wearing summer whites is a moral issue.

You mention driving on one side of the road or the other; it depends on whether or not you're in England or the US -- and either way, there's nothing good or evil about either option, unless we already have an objective moral rule that transcends both England and the US, that goes something like, "Thou shalt obey the local government," or "Thou shalt not drive in such a way as to kill people."

But you've already said we can't have any objective certainty about any such precepts. Maybe it's okay to disobey the government, or even kill people...if you can get away with it. That seems to be your logic.

"People happen to believe in various morals, though many of them disagree" is not even close to a justification for anybody who thinks to keep obeying any moral precepts at all, the minute it seems inconvenient to do so.

If you are going to say there's still such a thing as morality, you're going to have to have something better than that, surely.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then you're an amoralist.

But you say you're not. You say you still believe in morality, though you also believe there is nothing real behind it.

So I want to know one simple thing:

"How"?

We still live in a society (nothing "real" is behind that but there you go),

What do you mean "nothing real"? There are people, a culture, a constitution, laws, geography, language(s), history...a whole lot of empirical stuff "behind" a society. So it's not obvious, whatever you mean.

We have jobs with no supernatural realness,

But they all have natural realism. The engineer who builds no bridges isn't an engineer. The doctor who never entertains a patient is not a doctor for long. The artist who never paints isn't an artist at all...and so on.

But you're a moral anti-realist. You can't fall back on the equivalent, because you insist there is no realism at all to ethics.

These are human derived activities, none of them needs a higher truth for us to participate in them,

Well, nobody even suggested that one had to have "higher truth" in order to "participate" in anything. You can "participate" in the delusion that you're a leprechaun. It doesn't make it true or justifiable.

So far, your argument seems to be no more than, "Well, people will continue to follow morals, so we don't have to justify any." And if that's all it is, that's a pretty sad little argument there. It would rationalize ANYBODY doing ANYTHING. It would have zero to do with people who were behaving realistically or following any logic.

Not being the same everywhere does not make them random, or meaningless, or useless.

Nobody said any of the above. The problem is not just that they are "different," but that they are, in many cases, actually "opposed." So now you're falling back on cultural relativism? That's even thinner as an answer. It means you'd have to accept that if Southern Democrats in the 1800s believed in slavery, slavery was good. Or that if Saudis believe in beating women, then beating women is good...at least, for Sauids.

Do you think there's a magic pixie that makes it "true" that everybody should drive their car on the left side of the road, or is it arbitrary convention that everybody participates in because they find it useful?

There are plenty of arbitrary conventions, but most of them have zero to do with morality. Nobody even suggests that how you comb your hair, or on what date you stop wearing summer whites is a moral issue.

You mention driving on one side of the road or the other; it depends on whether or not you're in England or the US -- and either way, there's nothing good or evil about either option, unless we already have an objective moral rule that transcends both England and the US, that goes something like, "Thou shalt obey the local government," or "Thou shalt not drive in such a way as to kill people."

But you've already said we can't have any objective certainty about any such precepts. Maybe it's okay to disobey the government, or even kill people...if you can get away with it. That seems to be your logic.

"People happen to believe in various morals, though many of them disagree" is not even close to a justification for anybody who thinks to keep obeying any moral precepts at all, the minute it seems inconvenient to do so.

If you are going to say there's still such a thing as morality, you're going to have to have something better than that, surely.

I was answering your "one simple question" of "how", so there was nothing wrong with me choosing to elaborate using examples other than morality for that purpose. Please make at least some cursory attempt to keep your objections relevant to context.

Society is a category we create based on our needs, you live in many societies, there's real number for them and no real boundary to them, they aren't real. But we often think about society as if it were a real thing, simple clean and easy to define, because we very seldom need to think of it in any other way. But you could simply restart this whole thread as "What is society" and you won't find a straight forward answer that isn't stupid anywhere in that thread if you do.

There is no greater truth underpinning what profession you hold, there can be one regarding your qualifications for working in some specific field, and there are facts such we as s society don't approve of random bastards without those qualification practicing law and being surgeons at the weekend, but anyone can quit and drive a bus instead. The sort of reality you demand of morality obviously isn't contingent in that manner.

[Immanuel Can]

Society is a category we create based on our needs, you live in many societies, there's real number for them and no real boundary to them, they aren't real.

They're constructed and contingent, but not unreal. Try border jumping sometime, and you'll probably find out how real a constructed entity can be.

But morality, if it is merely constructed, is not obligatory for anybody, anytime they either don't think they'll get caught, or are willing to take the risk. And then, if caught, they are punished without justification by their society, for disobeying a moral law that wasn't justified in the first place. At least, that's how you've got to tell yourself the story.

The sort of reality you demand of morality

I'm not "demanding" anything. As I say, I was going with YOUR assumptions, not mine. I was simply asking what you believe about morality, and pointing out that contrary to your impressions, you don't believe it's a real thing at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

Society is a category we create based on our needs, you live in many societies, there's real number for them and no real boundary to them, they aren't real.

They're constructed and contingent, but not unreal. Try border jumping sometime, and you'll probably find out how real a constructed entity can be.

Fine, if we are saying abstract conventions created for humans exist as abstract conventions, because apparently we are now reduced to trivial tautology, then I am happy to not that morality exists as abstract convention, and everyone can be happy now. What amazing philosophy we are unearthing here today.

But morality, if it is merely constructed, is not obligatory for anybody, anytime they either don't think they'll get caught, or are willing to take the risk. And then, if caught, they are punished without justification by their society, for disobeying a moral law that wasn't justified in the first place. At least, that's how you've got to tell yourself the story.

And? Laws are merely constructed, manners are merely constructed, fashions are merely constructed; persons with free will often pick and choose which to participate in. When they do so they take a relevant risk, of being seen as a lawbreaker and maybe thereafter as a prisoner. Or being seen as an oaf and perhaps thereafter as the guy who doesn't get invited to parties. Or being seen as unfashionable, with whatever boring consequence that may bring, possibly involving trousers and laughter. What is supposed to be the point of this banal line of objection?

The sort of reality you demand of morality

I'm not "demanding" anything. As I say, I was going with YOUR assumptions, not mine. I was simply asking what you believe about morality, and pointing out that contrary to your impressions, you don't believe it's a real thing at all.

I am a moral skeptic, that means I dispute that there is moral knowledge or moral fact and I consider it a category mistake to go in search of some undergarments of moral reality that would provide such certainties. It doesn't mean I dispute that we have moral systems in our culture, nor does it mean that I believe moral language is empty of meaning, I wouldn't be a moral skeptic if it entailed such things, and I would become some other form of moral anti-realist, which is a broad term for a bunch of differing views.

[Immanuel Can]

I am happy to not that morality exists as abstract convention, and everyone can be happy now.

Not at all. People are now going to be unhappy, because you've told them they have to live under a regime of mere "abstract conventions." They will be rewarded and punished without deserving it, because the "morality" used to dispense honours and punishments have no basis in reality.

That would make anyone unhappy.

But morality, if it is merely constructed, is not obligatory for anybody, anytime they either don't think they'll get caught, or are willing to take the risk. And then, if caught, they are punished without justification by their society, for disobeying a moral law that wasn't justified in the first place. At least, that's how you've got to tell yourself the story.

And?

And that's amorality.

It doesn't mean I dispute that we have moral systems in our culture,

Trivial. Of course we do, empirically. It's just that you've now declared every one of them unjustifiable.

nor does it mean that I believe moral language is empty of meaning,

The word "unicorn" has meaning. But so what? It has no referent in reality.

If that's the kind of "meaning" moral language has, then it's merely deceptive -- for it purports to say something objective, but really doesn't.

In other words, it's nothing more than a bluff, a smokescreen, a ruse, a stratagem, a fake.

[henry quirk]

you're an anti-realist, flash, not an amoralist

you're morality is etiquette & convention...you're not indifferent to morality

Indeed. We have the moral language and practices and we can't really live together without them. But we constructed the edifice just as we have with poetry and fashion and law, none of which can be discovered already created for us by the universe.

That view doesn't commit anybody to amoralism, it just means that where there is disagreement that needs resolution, the tools available are those of persuasion, as there is no holy rock we can flip over to discover the answer.

even for us misguided realists there is no holy rock to flip

free will makes everything complicated

[FlashDangerpants]

In other words, it's nothing more than a bluff, a smokescreen, a ruse, a stratagem, a fake.

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism and the implications thereof in a circular effort to defend moral realism and the implications thereof.

[henry quirk]

we typically discuss our beliefs as if they are facts as a amtter of daily course, there's nothing unusual or significant about discussing our beliefs about morality in the same way we do all our other beliefs.

sure

difference is...

the moral realist actually believes, with good cause, there is a moral dimension to reality

by definition: the moral anti-realist, while he speak of morality, cannot take it as anything but preference, opinion, and convention

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

I can say slavery is wrong cuz a man belongs to himself...I see this as fact & moral fact

when you say slavery is wrong, as a moral anti-realist, why is it wrong?

[henry quirk]

Can there be personhood without morality?

I don't think so

Can there be personhood without God?

I don't think so

[FlashDangerpants]

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

That which is in fact a belief.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, it's nothing more than a bluff, a smokescreen, a ruse, a stratagem, a fake.

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism

No, I'm speaking of the implications of moral anti-realism.

Moral realism actually has none of those implications.

[Immanuel Can]

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

That which is in fact a belief.

"It is a fact that Flash believes in unicorns," is not equivalent to saying, "It is a fact that Flash has a unicorn." As a moral anti-realist, you're saying, "It is a fact that people have been fooled to believe that a thing called morality exists, when in fact, it does not exist."

You point out that people "believe" stuff. But you also say the stuff they believe is not real. So again...delusion, illusory construct, mental game, ruse, mere stratagem, fake.

But as a moral anti-realist, you can't logically insist that it's bad for people to be deluded, or follow mere illusions others have set up for them. So a fake isn't even a bad thing, in moral anti-realism: nothing's really bad.

[henry quirk]

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

That which is in fact a belief.

but what exactly is the belief?

I, again, can explain why slavery is wrong: can you?

[FlashDangerpants]

when the realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what he believes is fact

when the anti-realist protests an injustice, his passion roots in what exactly?

That which is in fact a belief.

"It is a fact that Flash believes in unicorns," is not equivalent to saying, "It is a fact that Flash has a unicorn." As a moral anti-realist, you're saying, "It is a fact that people have been fooled to believe that a thing called morality exists, when in fact, it does not exist."

You point out that people "believe" stuff. But you also say the stuff they believe is not real. So again...delusion, illusory construct, mental game, ruse, mere stratagem, fake.

But as a moral anti-realist, you can't logically insist that it's bad for people to be deluded, or follow mere illusions others have set up for them. So a fake isn't even a bad thing, in moral anti-realism: nothing's really bad.

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism and the implications thereof in a circular effort to defend moral realism and the implications thereof.