personhood

[FlashDangerpants]

So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist...

I didn't. You did.

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

[Skepdick]

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

How should we interpret your denial of amoralism then? It's clear to everybody that you are a moralist of some kind.

When you were pinned as a moral anti-realist you didn't like it either. Do you like the description "moral non-realist" better?

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

Above you are using apophatic language! It isn't "reality" that stands behind your belief of morality, but something does.

Don't give it a name if you don't want to, but recognize that what you are doing is exactly theology.

[Age]

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

How should we interpret your denial of amoralism then? It's clear to everybody that you are a moralist of some kind.

When you say "everybody" do you actually mean EVERY body?

When you were pinned as a moral anti-realist you didn't like it either. Do you like the description "moral non-realist" better?

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

Above you are using apophatic language! It isn't "reality" that stands behind your belief of morality, but something does.

Don't give it a name if you don't want to, but recognize that what you are doing is exactly theology.

[Immanuel Can]

That would be fraudulent, because you would be taking advantage of the others' naivete regarding morality in order to make life comfortable and "moral" for yourself, even while you knew in your heart that the whole thing was bunk. You'd be profiting from deceit, then: and that would be fraud.

Are you doing that?

"No. I am not doing that.", said the amoralist.

Why not? It's not evil, in your world. Are you now going to say that deceit is "bad," though you also say it refers to no objective property?

Words like "fraudulent", "taking advantage" and "deceit" are only meaningful to a moralist, not an amoralist.

Oh. So you would be deceitful. Okay.

Understand: I'm not condemning you on that, if you're totally consistent. If, when somebody else defrauds you, you don't protest, then that's fine. I'm just asking right now, not judging. I'm not the judge.

But then, most people are also going to disagree with you, and you're not going to be the kind of person they want to invite to share their society. Get caught in certain kinds of deceit, and they'll put you in jail, of course.

But personally, so long as you're consistent, and so long as your deceit doesn't extend to me, I'm fine with that. At least you're consistent.

[Immanuel Can]

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

You're going to have to explain the difference to me between an amoralist and an anti-moralist. They seem identical, at least in outcome, even if the proposed route there is said to be slightly different. So it's at worst a "misunderstanding" between us, which is not morally culpable.

But go ahead, I'd like to know what that difference is.

It's interesting: you seem to find the former term "insulting" somehow, but the latter merely descriptive. You'll need to explain why so, too. After all, in your world, being an amoralist can't be a "bad" thing, right? Just like a "lie" cannot be a "bad" thing.

And to "impose": you seem to be upset that you think somebody would do that to you as well, no? That's "bad"? But not objectively -- so even supposing somebody were "lying" and "imposing," so long as HE thought they weren't immoral acts, they aren't, right?

It's not at all clear to me, therefore, how you, as an "anti-moralist" are equipped to pass such judgments. You deny them any objective basis, but still seem irate if you feel they've been "violated" somehow. Of course, they haven't -- they can't be -- if anti-moralism is true...

[FlashDangerpants]

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

You're going to have to explain the difference to me between an amoralist and an anti-moralist. They seem identical, at least in outcome, even if the proposed route there is said to be slightly different. So it's at worst a "misunderstanding" between us, which is not morally culpable.

But go ahead, I'd like to know what that difference is.

It's interesting: you seem to find the former term "insulting" somehow, but the latter merely descriptive. You'll need to explain why so, too. After all, in your world, being an amoralist can't be a "bad" thing, right? Just like a "lie" cannot be a "bad" thing.

And to "impose": you seem to be upset that you think somebody would do that to you as well, no? That's "bad"? But not objectively -- so even supposing somebody were "lying" and "imposing," so long as HE thought they weren't immoral acts, they aren't, right?

It's not at all clear to me, therefore, how you, as an "anti-moralist" are equipped to pass such judgments. You deny them any objective basis, but still seem irate if you feel they've been "violated" somehow. Of course, they haven't -- they can't be -- if anti-moralism is true...

Here's what I wrote a couple of pages ago. You ignored it. But the upshot is there is no requirement for God to say a thing is bad, we have practices in place by which we can and do make that determination under our own power. Amoralism is the complete indifference to morality, and that is not my attitude at all. Please stop accusing me of it, it is a lie and I am unimpressed by dishonesty because I am not an amoralist.

Moral rules and judgments are constructed by people, not by God or any other fictional deity. There is no myth human infallibility so there need be no myth of moral infallibility that I need to worry about. There is no myth about human constructed artifacts being inalterable that I need to worry about either. Moral categories and priorities change subtly over time. Confusing moral issues arrise because various moral desires we hold are incompatible with each other, we create conventions regarding which take precedence and those conventions could be otherwise, which makes them arbitrary conventions, whether you like it or not.

This all old stuff. Our moral vocabulary is about persuasion and agreement for a reason. If it were about discovery and proof things would be different, they would need to be for that be possible though.

[Immanuel Can]

Amoralism is the complete indifference to morality, and that is not my attitude at all. Please stop accusing me of it, it is a lie and I am unimpressed by dishonesty because I am not an amoralist.

Sorry if you feel offended. No offence was intended, just a descriptive term.

Collins Dictionary says this about amoralism:

amoralism
in British English
(ˌeɪˈmɒrəlɪzəm)
NOUN
the doctrine or attitude that ignores or rejects moral values, or deems them to be irrelevant

So according to Collins, it is not at all necessary to have any particular attitude in order to be an amoralist -- just a position relative to the objective existence of morality, one you have already described yourself as taking.

Interestingly, in your protest of this, I notice that you accuse me of "dishonesty." Is it now your claim that I have done something objectively wrong to you? If not, on what basis do you expect your indictment to carry to me, especially if subjectively, I don't feel I've harmed you or done something wrong? Even if I had done you some kind of awful "injustice," there's no objective thing called "justice," so as long as I was fine with it, you'd loose any basis of complaint.

Happy with that?

But if not, then you're failing to follow through on your own view if you expect your displeasure to convince me something "bad" has happened. You already denied there was any objective moral standard between us for me to have to regard. How now are you upset?

Moral rules and judgments are constructed by people...Moral categories and priorities change subtly over time.

If that's true, then "moral" means nothing but "what these people, at this time, in this location, happen to believe is good or bad." So slavery isn't wrong for people who believe it's good, like Southern Democrats in the 1800s or Islamic states today. Wife-beating is dandy for people who think it's dandy, as is rape and pedophelia...provided a certain selection of other people agree. Social relativism again.

Oh, but wait, wait...you said earlier that "society" was a mere construct too. It was one of your examples. So it can't matter at all that any particular "society" approves or disapproves of an action...

But if that's right, then all things are permissible, and nothing can be wrong that an individual doesn't think is wrong. Or even if he does, since there's nothing real behind his subjective feeling.

And then, there's no difference anymore between anti-moralism and amoralism again.

But you insist there is: you're irate to be called an amoralist. So to justify your ire, you're going to have to give me grounds that are not society-dependent for believing a thing called "morality" still "exists" in some sense...

I can't see how you're going to manage that, but I'm interested.

[Skepdick]

Why not? It's not evil, in your world. Are you now going to say that deceit is "bad," though you also say it refers to no objective property?

But you are saying these things about the amoralist's behaviour? You are describing the amoralist's behaviour as "deceitful', "bad" and evil.

The amoralist simply points out that such descriptions are neither "evil" nor "not evil", because the word "evil" doesn't mean anything in an amoralist frame.

Oh. So you would be deceitful. Okay.

Is that how you are judging my behaviour? Why?

"Deceit" is meaningless in a moralist frame too...

Understand: I'm not condemning you on that, if you're totally consistent. If, when somebody else defrauds you, you don't protest, then that's fine. I'm just asking right now, not judging. I'm not the judge.

But you are judging. You've judged my behaviour as "deceitful", and you've judged the outcome as "fraud".

Even though I've respected all of YOUR (stated) rules. If you can't tell me what it is you DON'T want me to do, how am I to know not to do it to you?

But then, most people are also going to disagree with you, and you're not going to be the kind of person they want to invite to share their society. Get caught in certain kinds of deceit, and they'll put you in jail, of course.

Not if I catch you being "deceitful" first. Last person out of jail wins.

But personally, so long as you're consistent, and so long as your deceit doesn't extend to me, I'm fine with that. At least you're consistent.

I am 100% honest when I tell you that I do and WILL exploit your axioms against you.

If you don't like that - give up your axioms.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's an outright lie. I have never once claimed to be an amoralist, you have been trying to impose that on me.

How should we interpret your denial of amoralism then? It's clear to everybody that you are a moralist of some kind.

When you were pinned as a moral anti-realist you didn't like it either. Do you like the description "moral non-realist" better?

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

Above you are using apophatic language! It isn't "reality" that stands behind your belief of morality, but something does.

Don't give it a name if you don't want to, but recognize that what you are doing is exactly theology.

There is no particular need at present for some special new term to define my attitude, moral skepticism is the broad term, I can live without a special word just for me at present.

I suppose I could make some effort post to explain in greater detail, but when I look at the quality of responses I should expect from that excercise it just doesn't seem worth it. And this thread doesn't even have some fuckwit spamming "morality-proper" nonsense to make everything even less bearable yet. So here's a quick and dirty restatement of stuff I really feel I've already presented enough times, but whatever...


All that is in dispute as far as I am concerned is whether we can have true or or justified knowledge given the chaos of moral concerns that we typically are entangled in...

The basic components of morality are the things I was discussing with Henry yesterday, except there are innumerably more of them. We referenced just a couple such as honesty and fairness, but who could reliably list the other components of our moral schema? We have a huge cultural agglomeration of ill defined duties and over-defined rights, there are definitely expectations and we value this notion of honour as well. Maybe there is some use for piety still, or perhaps that was just for the Romans and nobody now cares what it was. Unpack any of those and there is a new tangle of to whom we owe duties, and from where do we get rights, as well as who gets to decide what piety even means now that we don't all have the same religion as our neighbours? Then, whenever any level of complexity is involved, these competing concerns have to be weighed up according to some preference for fairness over obligation or vice versa given some particular circumstance. Moral skepticism boils down to that preference right there at the end, and my assertion is that you can never have certainty that you have chosen to prioritise in some exactly correct manner.

Arguments in favour of moral certainties typically rely on those circumstances where our moral intuitions are totally uncomplicated and thus universally similar, which is why we have to discuss rape so often, but that's all just intuition pumps. Afterwards the moral realist will often claim that the moral skpetic is some sort of bad man because he can't prove that murder is wrong, but nobody else has either, they just took advantage of the conceptual incoherence inherent to the idea of morally allowable murder to claim a victory against no enemy. Some of them even fail at that, with stupid arguments about breathing.

Take those basic units of morality I listed above, and you will note that most moral philosophy over the centuries has been about picking one and awarding it primacy over the others. So utilitarianism is about suffering, deontology is about duty. But there's a depressingly easy trick to show any of them to be clearly mistaken and it's been that way for centuries already. You just create a thought experiment in which any normal person would choose any of the other concerns over the one that the given philosopher has foolishly enslaved himself to, and then you have argued them to an absurd conclusion. This trick works every time because there is no clear rational way to arrive at a justified hierarchy in these matters, the moral skeptic simply recognises the reasons why this trick works so often, while the other guys mostly seem to be rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic for their response.

[FlashDangerpants]

Amoralism is the complete indifference to morality, and that is not my attitude at all. Please stop accusing me of it, it is a lie and I am unimpressed by dishonesty because I am not an amoralist.

Sorry if you feel offended. No offence was intended, just a descriptive term.

Collins Dictionary says this about amoralism:

amoralism
in British English
(ˌeɪˈmɒrəlɪzəm)
NOUN
the doctrine or attitude that ignores or rejects moral values, or deems them to be irrelevant

So according to Collins, it is not at all necessary to have any particular attitude in order to be an amoralist -- just a position relative to the objective existence of morality, one you have already described yourself as taking.

I don't deem moral attitudes to be irrelevant. I don't ignore them. I don't reject them.

All that is happening here is that I am dipsuting that they are founded upon any particular objective fact, and you are wildly overinterpreting a load of extra shit that is still derived from your essentailist assumptions, and is still circular.

[Skepdick]

There is no particular need at present for some special new term to define my attitude, moral skepticism is the broad term, I can live without a special word just for me at present.

Moral skeptics don't exist. We entertain the idea philosophically, we use it for thought experiments but it's an impossible philosophy to practice. It is a philosophy tantamount to Buridan's ass.

And in confirming the above you openly admit that you hold moral beliefs.

They may be unjustified, but you do hold them. So you are no moral skeptic.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no particular need at present for some special new term to define my attitude, moral skepticism is the broad term, I can live without a special word just for me at present.

Moral skeptics don't exist. We entertain the idea philosophically, we use it for thought experiments but it's an impossible philosophy to practice. It is a philosophy tantamount to Buridan's ass.

And in confirming the above you openly admit that you hold moral beliefs.

They may be unjustified, but you do hold them. So you are no moral skeptic.

Really? So in your real life you behave at all times as if there is a definite answer to every moral issue and you already are in posession of it do you?

I knew in advance that I was going to only get stupid responses to that post.

[Skepdick]

Really? So in your real life you behave at all times as if there is a definite answer to every moral issue and you already are in posession of it do you?

I knew in advance that I was going to only get stupid responses to that post.

Idiot. You are the one who claimed we live AS IF our beliefs are facts, so I assume it applies to you also.

So do you not live your life AS IF murder is wrong, or are you a moral skeptic on this particular issue?

I love how you project your stupid onto others.

I live my life as if there is a definite answer to every moral issue. At no point have I ever claimed that I am in possession of ALL moral knowledge.

[FlashDangerpants]

Really? So in your real life you behave at all times as if there is a definite answer to every moral issue and you already are in posession of it do you?

I knew in advance that I was going to only get stupid responses to that post.

Idiot. You are the one who claimed we live AS IF our beliefs are facts.

So do you not live your life AS IF murder were wrong?

I love how you project your stupid onto others.

You have commited a terrible crime by using up more than your fair share of stupidity and bullshittery today. I shall repsond with a trespass of my own and steal Henry's sin bin to store you in for an arbitrary amount of time. In this instance I have made a decision on the fly to prioritise forgiveness over permission. That's Henry's forgiveness of course, yours has been casually determined to be of no relevance in my decision making.

[Skepdick]

You have commited a terrible crime by using up more than your fair share of stupidity and bullshittery today.

I am only mirroring your language/argument, snowflake.

If you recognise it as "stupidity and bullshittery"... you sure have a problem.

So when you un-trigger yourself, come tell us how a "moral skeptic" reacts to coal mine job offers in exchange for reduced beatings.

Is the question all "moral skeptics" hate: If you know your moral beliefs are unjustified, then why do you act on them?