Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:34 am
I find this incredibly peculiar way of reasoning.
If we are to believe that you believe this response then it necessarily implies that morality is more about what we say and less about what we do.
I don't think law/legislation and morality cover the same turf, though there's overlap. I went into that. I also went into likely behavioral differences.
According to you morality is lip service. Fascinating!
I can understand you writing this after you read that much. But that you left it in after reading the rest of my post doesn't make sense to me.
I provided just the information necessary to learn what I needed to learn.
The (so-called) non-moral consideration influenced the philosopher's decision-making more than their moral consideration. So whatever that consideration was, it was more important than morality to the philosopher making the decision.
In your hypothetical scenario. I also looked in this in my post, though not as much as I would have if you had given examples. I worked with your hypothetical philosophers as best I could. And one of them is a very rare creature. The one who thinks abortion is right but wants legislation against abortion.
But then I have no idea what you needed to learn. If you're learning it, great.
Could you think of anything which supercedes our values when justifying our decision-making?
Again, laws are not the only form of decision-making, and arguing in favor of certain laws is not the only kind of behavior.
Suppose a Doctor's philosophical stance is that abortion is morally wrong, yet he has no qualms performing the procedure. Does the doctor agree or disagree with himself?
And now you are bringing in attitude. You first scenario said nothing about how this person feels. I even gave an example where I saw a behavior that I had qualms about, but which I did not think there should be legislation against.
Anybody who insists that the doctor is performatively contradicting themselves necessarily does NOT believe in the existence of an is-ought gap.
Fact: The doctor holds the belief/mental attitude that abortion is morally wrong.
Value: The doctor shouldn't perform abortions.
Though not in its usual conception. Here you are saying that morals should lead to certain behaviors and behaviors should be aligned with one's morals.
That's not an argument against the is-ought issues as it is usually conceived. It is generating the oughts that everyone should follow from is, rather then pointing out hypocricies or contradictions between individuals who have values and their behavior in the world.
Well, you acted as if I hadn't written a number of things I wrote.
It's a good topic. I still think it would be better with details.
I'll respond to others. You're getting what you need. So, it's working for you, great.
