Philosophy Now Forum

chaz:

As for moral contradiction. I'm willing to discuss this with a case.
eg.
Is abortion immoral

creativesoul wrote:I stand by every claim I've made. If you knew what it would take for my claim(s) to be true, then you would know what I mean.



Call it charity.

There can be no understanding when one is quibbling over the meaning of uncontentious terms like "simple" and "complex". That is never a good sign. Nor can there be progress when one neglects to acknowledge the incoherency in their position, and instead focuses upon (mis)understandings and (mis)extrapolations borne of wrongful presuppositions.

The only somewhat relevant objection thus far concerned my use of the term "universal". So, I must ask...

What, on your view, would constitute being universal morality? What criterion must be satisfied in order to warrant calling it that?

creativesoul wrote:

chaz:

As for moral contradiction. I'm willing to discuss this with a case.
eg.
Is abortion immoral

Hopefully, you're willing to contemplate something anew.


I am willing to discuss ANY moral issue with a view to demonstrating how ridiculous is any claim that there can exist a universally applicable moral law. But I think we have done this discussion to death.
You can only babble so long about the abstract possibility of a thing. Ultimately if you can't demonstrate it then is remains babble.

X is immoral IFF it conflicts with universal morality.

No- it might be amoral. But as there is no universal morality then there is no actual conflict.


Now, this changes the way that you must think about morality, but that is necessary.

NO, because your statement ASSUMES that which is in question. I'm sure you have heard of a "question begging" fallacy. Well you are presenting a prime example of one. If you don't get that then, as I already said; 'we are done here."


It is fairly uncontentious that there is a need for a paradigm shift concerning morality.

Nope.

No one denies that morality exists, it is always a matter of how. The primary problem with it, on my view, has been the unrelenting influence of the Church on both believers' and nonbelievers' thought processes. The beginning of the shift, if it is going to happen, lands squarely in the philosophical domain. It requires a rather intensive methodological analysis and a healthy dose of meta-ethical consideration.

I put it to you that universal morality is not completely subject to our minds for all of it's content(the individual elements which, when combined, constitute being universal morality). Rather our mind is subject to employing universal morality independently of what we later come to think/believe about it.

Simply impossible. Meaningless.

Because universal morality emerges through thinking subjects, it requires a mind to exist. However, it does not follow that morality is subject to the mind for all of it's content. Rather, it is mind-dependent for it's instantiation via simple thought/belief formation, and then again at common langauge acquisition. That is a matter of being shown through necessity and sufficiency - and can be justified a priori. Our becoming aware of X requires our mind, which comes of no surprise as that is the case for anything that we become aware of.

In order to discover what universal morality is, we must look at individual 'moral' belief, codes of conduct, and discourse - quite simply because that is the only place to look. To follow suit and also use an analogy(which obviously fails if taken too far as they all do), 'moral' thought/belief, codes of conduct, and discourse are derived from universal morality being combined with common language acquisition and/or adopted thought/belief, just as calculations are derived from mathematical axioms. In the same way that calculations can be mistakenly derived due to attributing value to variables, so too can 'moral' belief, codes of conduct, and discourse be mistakenly derived from universal morality through attributing value to false thought/belief.

Example please!

I'm fairly certain that that was not what you had in mind, but that is what I mean. Do you know what it would take for any of this to be true? IOW, do you now know what I mean?

Meaning has to have truth content. You are just blowing hot air. Morality is not logical, nor mathematical.
If you want to go down this road you need to explain why LP has not offered any solutions in this field though it has been available to speculation for nearly 100 years.
If you look back I have been pressing you on this point since the outset and you have studiously avoided answering that question.
I apologise for my impatience, but if you read through and put yourself in my position, you might conclude that you have been rather rude in ignoring my questions when I have answered yours.

creativesoul wrote:What, on your view, would constitute being universal morality? What criterion must be satisfied in order to warrant calling it that?

creativesoul wrote:The irony here is thick. Thick indeed. To put it rather bluntly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

creativesoul wrote:Chaz, I'm asking a direct question. What constitutes being "universal" on your view? Earlier you invoked "universal applicability". That is useless for the task at hand, for a falsehood can be universally applied. I've already answered your question. There is a distinction that needs to be made and adhered to between universal applicable and universally extant. I'm arguing method. Pay attention this time.

It's your assertion , so why not make it?

Universally extant, without exception, and/or necessarily presupposed I would argue for.

Meaning.....?


The irony here is had in the projection inherent in your accusations throughout this thread.

Which is?

Allow me to hold up a mirror for you.

You are already looking at your own irony - keep it that way!

Doesn't the fact that I've already described the entirety of your position grab your attention in any way?

In your dreams!

You have not even stated what you mean by morality.
you are just playing. You regret your initial statements, made rashly, perhaps thinking that you would not be called on them, and then you have retreated into your shell from which you throw paulty sophistic arguments that have little practical meaning.
Well, claiming Anything is universal is a massive claim that you have not begun to defend.
What did you mean by it?

creative:

Doesn't the fact that I've already described the entirety of your position grab your attention in any way?

chaz:

In your dreams!

Chaz:

I reject any claim, i think, that morality can be anything beyond which people believe is the right thing to do.

creative:

That commonly held notion plays a variable role in the methodology required for analyzing the common conception of morality, but it is not sufficient for properly identifying morality. Following from the above - because we know that codes of conduct can and do vary with individual particulars, such as familial and cultural(social) influences(belief and values), the notion of what is believed to be 'the right thing to do' varies accordingly. It corresponds to personal belief that, upon examination and comparison, is extant within a limited number of particular cases. That is because 'moral' belief grounds the notions of 'right/wrong' and 'good/evil'. Most 'moral' belief does not necessarily follow from universal morality. Therefore, much of what is commonly called 'moral' issues, are anything but. Thus, 'the right thing to do' line of thinking concludes that morality is subject to familial/cultural thought/belief, and/or traditional values which are created within, and is/are therefore subject to the mind(thought/belief).

chaz:

Thank you for making my case for me...

chaz:

As Hobbes might have put it: Good is that which pleaseth man; Evil is that which pleaseth him not.

creative:

No argument here. "Good and evil" along with "right and wrong" are conclusions mistakenly stated as thought they are matters of fact. They're grounded upon pre-existing 'moral' belief, and constitute ground for utterances of ought. "One ought not murder" is grounded upon the belief that murder is wrong for everybody. That belief, as all thought/belief does, necessarily presupposes it's own 'loose' truth/reality correspondence; to the way things are. I do not argue 'oughts', neither will I engage in arguing about 'right/wrong' nor 'good/evil'. In fact, we most likely would agree. Rather, my position has simple premisses/axioms. One of those being, that which is immoral conflicts with morality. That which is moral does not.

chaz:

Yes, thanks for making my argument...

creative:

Chaz, I'm asking a direct question. What constitutes being "universal" on your view?

chaz:

It's your assertion , so why not make it?

creativesoul wrote:Are you going to answer the question or not?

creativesoul wrote:

creative:

Chaz, I'm asking a direct question. What constitutes being "universal" on your view?

chaz:

It's your assertion , so why not make it?

I have. You objected without grounding the objection. Objection to X requires grounds. Now, the only ground for objecting to my use of the term "universal" is based upon your belief that I've used the term incorrectly. In order to incorrectly use a term, the must be a correct way to use it. Now, for the last time...

What on your view constitutes being properly called "universal"? What criterion must be met in order to call X "universal"? If you do not or cannot answer that question your objection is rendered vacuous/unfounded. Justify your claims.