Philosophy Now Forum

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. [google-Oxford dictionary]
  
  Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

• Another example is the felicific calculus formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act.
  -WIKI

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:35 am Morality is commonly recognized as dealing with the opinions, beliefs and judgment on what is right or wrong of certain human behaviors.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. [google-Oxford dictionary]
  
  Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

This is the basis PH & gang argued that Morality cannot be objective, because what is right or wrong is based on beliefs and judgment which is definitely subjective.

I argue, morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG and false and do not effectively represent what Morality essentially and truly is within human nature.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:01 pm It seems you expect everyone else to change their definition of morality to match yours.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:01 pm If what you keep going on about does not conform to the standard definition of morality, then what you are talking about is not morality, it is something else.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:22 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:01 pm It seems you expect everyone else to change their definition of morality to match yours.

Hardly. Upon closer examination it turns out that nobody is actually using the definition they claim to be using.

Upon even closer examination it turns out that nobody knows what definition for "morality" they are actualy using which is the same as saying that nobody has any idea what the fuck they are talking about when they talk about morality.

So what are you talking about when you talk about morality? Ah, silly me! You are using the standard definition so you are necessarily talking about the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Can you list those principles please?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:42 pm I don't recognise any truth in your assertions. Perhaps you also don't know what you're talking about.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:42 pm You say that I am talking about principles, yet I never mentioned principles. You then ask that I list those principles that I never mentioned. So no, I won't be listing any principles.

morality noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:35 am Morality is commonly recognized as dealing with the opinions, beliefs and judgment on what is right or wrong of certain human behaviors.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. [google-Oxford dictionary]
  
  Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

This is the basis PH & gang argued that Morality cannot be objective, because what is right or wrong is based on beliefs and judgment which is definitely subjective.

I argue, morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG and false and do not effectively represent what Morality essentially and truly is within human nature.
The basis of morality = rightness and wrongness is highly ridiculous, not practical nor effective, because in this case, every person must assess every of their intended action is regarded as right or wrong.

This is taken to the extreme of resorting to 'morality calculus' [supposedly the most right] to decide on what is the proper action to take.

• Another example is the felicific calculus formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act.
  -WIKI

Another approach is to practice on Casuistry Problems [e.g. the Trolley Problem] so that if such a situation actually happens, one can make the most moral decision that is right. This is not practically especially these are such stressful situations and can be very subjective.

Thus Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG and not effective in facilitating moral progress of humanity towards the future.

As I had presented over various threads in this section there are approaches to morality that do not depend on rightness and wrongness of moral decisions but rather are grounded on objective moral facts conditioned within a human-based moral FSR-FSK.

Do you agree "Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG" and not effective?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:35 pm One has to be extraordinarily dense to think that, acknowledging the subjective nature of rightness and wrongness, necessarily stops us from constructing socially shared moral systems.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:35 pm One has to be extraordinarily dense to think that, acknowledging the subjective nature of rightness and wrongness, necessarily stops us from constructing socially shared moral systems.

One has to be significantly denser than extraordinary denseness to think that shared socially constructed evaluation systems are "subjective".

To most regular people and scientists that's a sufficient condition for objectivity. It takes a philosopher to call it subjective.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:42 pm I don't recognise any truth in your assertions. Perhaps you also don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about whenever I talk about anything. The trouble is that the subject matter often elludes definability.

Here's the Oxford definition for "morality"

"morality noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

So what are you talking about?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:47 pm Heh you couldn't not confuse different topics and start making sense even if your life depended on it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:49 pm The only point I am making is that it is Veritas Aquitas who is wrong.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:35 am Morality is commonly recognized as dealing with the opinions, beliefs and judgment on what is right or wrong of certain human behaviors.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. [google-Oxford dictionary]
  
  Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

This is the basis PH & gang argued that Morality cannot be objective, because what is right or wrong is based on beliefs and judgment which is definitely subjective.

I argue, morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG and false and do not effectively represent what Morality essentially and truly is within human nature.
The basis of morality = rightness and wrongness is highly ridiculous, not practical nor effective, because in this case, every person must assess every of their intended action is regarded as right or wrong.

This is taken to the extreme of resorting to 'morality calculus' [supposedly the most right] to decide on what is the proper action to take.

• Another example is the felicific calculus formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act.
  -WIKI

Another approach is to practice on Casuistry Problems [e.g. the Trolley Problem] so that if such a situation actually happens, one can make the most moral decision that is right. This is not practically especially these are such stressful situations and can be very subjective.

Thus Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG and not effective in facilitating moral progress of humanity towards the future.

As I had presented over various threads in this section there are approaches to morality that do not depend on rightness and wrongness of moral decisions but rather are grounded on objective moral facts conditioned within a human-based moral FSR-FSK.

Do you agree "Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG" and not effective?

One has to be extraordinarily dense to think that, acknowledging the subjective nature of rightness and wrongness, necessarily stops us from constructing socially shared moral systems.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:35 pm One has to be extraordinarily dense to think that, acknowledging the subjective nature of rightness and wrongness, necessarily stops us from constructing socially shared moral systems.

One has to be significantly denser than extraordinary denseness to think that shared socially constructed evaluation systems are "subjective".

To most regular people and scientists that's a sufficient condition for objectivity. It takes a philosopher to call it subjective.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:52 pm Well VA just does happen to be extraordinarily dense.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:51 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:49 pm The only point I am making is that it is Veritas Aquitas who is wrong.

OK. Which moral principle makes VA "wrong" ?

Which moral principle decrees that redefining morality is morally wrong?