at Canzookia.com
https://canzookia.com/
Are you saying we need to have some people, (philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not? And this is necessary because otherwise...Typist wrote:Another article that ignores the fact that philosophers are a tiny minority.
Moral relativism is correctly labeled as sophomoric, as it ignores the reality of human beings, in the same way an inexperienced young person would.
The philosopher assumes that if they can just write the correct logic math equation, a useful answer will pop out.
The philosopher ignores that this approach addresses only the thin veneer of reason which coats the real source of human activity, the much more influential emotion driven center of our subconscious.
Moral systems recognize that it's not possible to enforce the self sacrifice that civilization requires from the outside.
The purpose of morality is to get the user to police themselves, by connecting necessary social rules to what the user cares about the most, their self image.
In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.
So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?The practical matter is that if moral relativism continues to gain popularity, the end result will be ever more people doing whatever the heck they want, which threatens the social contract necessary for any of us to get what we want.
Thundril wrote:Are you saying we need to have some people, (but clearly not the sophomoric philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not? And this is necessary because otherwise...Typist wrote:Another article that ignores the fact that philosophers are a tiny minority.
Moral relativism is correctly labeled as sophomoric, as it ignores the reality of human beings, in the same way an inexperienced young person would.
The philosopher assumes that if they can just write the correct logic math equation, a useful answer will pop out.
The philosopher ignores that this approach addresses only the thin veneer of reason which coats the real source of human activity, the much more influential emotion driven center of our subconscious.
Moral systems recognize that it's not possible to enforce the self sacrifice that civilization requires from the outside.
The purpose of morality is to get the user to police themselves, by connecting necessary social rules to what the user cares about the most, their self image.
In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.
So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?The practical matter is that if moral relativism continues to gain popularity, the end result will be ever more people doing whatever the heck they want, which threatens the social contract necessary for any of us to get what we want.
So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?
The article notes that there have been many different moral systems across the world for thousands of years. That is, moral systems have proven to be necessary.Are you saying we need to have some people, (philosophers?) who tell everybody else that morals have universal authority whether they believe it themselves or not?
Because otherwise, everybody will invent their own morality, and you won't like a lot of them.And this is necessary because otherwise...
Haven't read that yet, can't say.So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?
The preaching can be done by anybody who believes the sermon. The believing can be done by anybody who'd like to live in a civilization characterized by some degree of peace and order.So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?
"Sold?" O-kaay..Typist wrote:I would suggest moral systems can be sold best by those who believe in them sincerely.
Yes. I'm trying to get at how you arrive at said 'shared conviction'.Typist wrote: Universal authority doesn't require gods, it only requires a shared conviction that the moral statements are RIGHT!
That sounds like the world as it has always been. Not at all perfect, but the worst of it seems to be the endless bloody conflicts between the followers of the preachers of different and conflicting 'Universal Truths.'Typist wrote:Because otherwise, everybody will invent their own morality, and you won't like a lot of them.And this is necessary because otherwise...
Neither have I. Have looked at the synopsis though. Looks like it might be saying the same thing you are saying. I'd be interested to read what you think if you get a chance to read it.Typist wrote:Haven't read that yet, can't say.So you go along with the 'Moral Fictionalism' discussed by Richard Joyce in another article in the same group?
So who produces the sermon in the first place? Whose version of morality shall we adopt as the 'Universal' one? Who gets to pick, vote, or design from scratch, the successful code?Typist wrote:The preaching can be done by anybody who believes the sermon.So who does the 'preaching whilst not necessarily believing' and who has to do the 'believing and obeying.'?
Would you accept that 'pretending to believe' would suit your purpose of peace and order etc., as long as everybody pretended to believe the same thing? I agree in theory that might result in a kind of universal harmony based on a kind of universal self-delusion. Which we might as well call god.Typist wrote:The believing can be done by anybody who'd like to live in a civilization characterized by some degree of peace and order.
Be careful of over thinking this. As I said at the top, the vast majority of folks are not philosophers. We aren't designing a system for philosophers, who are of course, already perfect as they are.How would you, for example, persuade someone else to believe this morality, and then, once you are satisfied that they have believed it, how would you encourage such a believer to preach this morality to others as if it were really universal? Can this be done without some level of dishonesty?
Quite a bit of shared conviction already exists. What I'm suggesting is that fancy talk thinker like us not undermine that shared conviction by trying to replace it with moral relativism.Yes. I'm trying to get at how you arrive at said 'shared conviction'.
There's a conviction of "rightness" that while not universal, is widely shared. Religious violence is bad.That sounds like the world as it has always been. Not at all perfect, but the worst of it seems to be the endless bloody conflicts between the followers of the preachers of different and conflicting 'Universal Truths.'
Please remind me if I forget.Neither have I. Have looked at the synopsis though. Looks like it might be saying the same thing you are saying. I'd be interested to read what you think if you get a chance to read it.
I do. Next question?So who produces the sermon in the first place? Whose version of morality shall we adopt as the 'Universal' one? Who gets to pick, vote, or design from scratch, the successful code?
How about this? We might identify those things that most people sincerely believe to be RIGHT! And then strengthen that agreement, rather than undermine it.Would you accept that 'pretending to believe' would suit your purpose of peace and order etc., as long as everybody pretended to believe the same thing?
Recent events in Egypt offer an example.This still leaves the vexatious question of what to do about the actual world, in which lots of different people actually do believe lots of different things.
This is what I am questioning.Typist wrote:In order for this to work, moral systems have to claim some kind of universal authority. Whether this universal authority actually exists is largely irrelevant.
I'm really not a fancy thinker, but this is the sort of discussion I have with people in pubs all the time. The awareness that morality isn't derived from some universal authority is already out there.Typist wrote:IQuite a bit of shared conviction already exists. What I'm suggesting is that fancy talk thinker like us not undermine that shared conviction by trying to replace it with moral relativism.
And other such nonsense.It's ok for me to rape your daughter, because I'm just expressing urges which were created by nature, and are thus higher than any rule man creates...
Are you quotinfg an actual moral relativist here, or one made of straw?Typist wrote:And other such nonsense.It's ok for me to rape your daughter, because I'm just expressing urges which were created by nature, and are thus higher than any rule man creates...
Typist wrote:...
What events in Egypt reveal is that there really isn't such a big division. We want political freedom for ourselves, and millions of Egyptians do too. Those who disagree are a tiny, if determined, minority.
Yeah! A tiny minority called the US goverment. Unless it's skipped Typists notice his tax dollars have been supporting Mubarak for 40 years and since he's claimed that he owns his govt it appears he's been fighting for dictatorship with no apology. 40 years? I thought it was 30? Not that it matters much. I am not good with history, Arising. Why did we start paying him to begin with? Did America give him the money 30/40 years ago for the soul purpose of him to be a dictator, or did they give it as protection money for Israel, or did they give it to him to help the Egyptian people and then he used it for his own purpose? What happened there. Why would America want to support a dictator by giving him money? What did we get in return?Arising_uk wrote:Typist wrote:...
What events in Egypt reveal is that there really isn't such a big division. We want political freedom for ourselves, and millions of Egyptians do too. Those who disagree are a tiny, if determined, minority.
You couldn't make him up if you tried.
I stand corrected AS, he made VP in 75 and Prez in 81.artisticsolution wrote:...40 years? I thought it was 30? Not that it matters much. I am not good with history, Arising. Why did we start paying him to begin with? Did America give him the money 30/40 years ago for the soul purpose of him to be a dictator, or did they give it as protection money for Israel, or did they give it to him to help the Egyptian people and then he used it for his own purpose? What happened there. Why would America want to support a dictator by giving him money? What did we get in return?
