Philosophy Now Forum

creativesoul wrote:Influenced by Spinoza, Kant, Hume, Heidegger, Jung, Ayers, Witt, Lao Tzu and too many others to list. Favorite topics are morality(which I hold an unconventional conception of), trust, truth, thought, and belief. No formal training to speak of. Not much else to say for the moment...

Chaz wrote:

What do you mean by conventional morality.

Do you believe it possible to have any universal, absolute and objective rules?

creativesoul wrote:
The SEP article on the 'definition' equates morality with a code of conduct. That is an all too common (mis)conception on my view. You can view that here.

Although I can successfully justify my own conception of "objective" as that which is not subject to our minds, I tend to avoid employing the term unless necessary. Universally extant, without exception, and/or necessarily presupposed I would argue for.

I'm not a theist, Kantian, nor "spiritual" in any common sense use of the word, contrary to my avatar name. It is just one that I've grown fond of over the years. The philosophical approach I take on morality is one borne of logical positivism, specifically Ayer's position on the domain of(or still relevant in) philosophy. That being methodological analysis, and is directly tied into the 'concepts' of trust, truth, thought/belief.

Other interests include Donald Davidson, specifically his article Truth and Meaning, and the claim that coherence yields correspondence. Although later abandoned, I think that it is possible, even probable, that he still believed it, but just could not find a way to justify making it - ironically enough given his "justified in the right kind of way" Gettier influenced phrasing for knowledge.

Enough for now

creative:

The SEP article on the 'definition' equates morality with a code of conduct. That is an all too common (mis)conception on my view.

Chaz:

Sorry - what is your objection?

creativesoul wrote:

creative:

The SEP article on the 'definition' equates morality with a code of conduct. That is an all too common (mis)conception on my view.

Chaz:

Sorry - what is your objection?

Codes of conduct are 'moral' belief, that is, belief about morality. It is a matter of logic that belief about X and X are distinct, unless belief about X completely exhausts X. IOW, unless there is no distinction between belief about X and X. Try this...

Morality is an emergent property of the universe and/or it's contents that is necessarily presupposed within but not subject to, the thought/belief formation of intelligent, rational, and socially interdependent creatures who are capable of self-direction and complex language acquisition. Morality consists of universally extant and 'rules'/laws and principles that all thought/belief formation is contingent upon, including but not limited to, the formation of 'moral' belief, codes of acceptable/unacceptable behavior, and/or the ethical considerations that follow from common language acquisition, be they normative, prescriptive, or meta-ethical.

The LP influence bears upon the methodological analysis, it does not agree with the 'Emotivist' position that Ayers held on morality.

Chaz:

Okay. I queried you objection the the equation morality = a code of conduct, because I believe that morality can be nothing but a list of rules based on contingent and ad hoc historical and social circumstances.

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

TO go further would be an appeal to a divine legislative authority; or a set of Platonic values that exist out there in the ether somewhere.

In practice there is no 'absolute' from which to draw a distinction between a thing believed and that thing, because, say, if you believe killing is wrong, there is nothing more than that - a belief.

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

It is a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking to assert that morality is an emergent property of the Universe, when there is only evidence to suggest that it is only a property of human thinking. No humans = no morality. It is subject to human need.

Your paragraph begining "Morality" and ending "meta-ethical" is incoherent.

As for LP - you still have not answered my questions.

LP might seem like a good way to begin the analysis of morality, but I doubt whether it has much utility.

creativesoul wrote:

Chaz:

Okay. I queried you objection the the equation morality = a code of conduct, because I believe that morality can be nothing but a list of rules based on contingent and ad hoc historical and social circumstances.

Because you "believe"...? I can show otherwise.

Show me the money

The above is a textbook example of affirming the consequent. If the premiss is "morality refers to codes of conduct", then "because I believe morality can be nothing but a set of rules based on, etc" is not very compelling support, and not at all indicative of the reasoning capability necessary to comprehend my position unless there is much paving the way on my part. Given certain - yet to have been realized - conditions, I'm more that willing to do that. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to bear the burden of proof regarding my own claims. I am of the position that if one cannot come to meaningful and coherent terms in order to describe their own thought/belief, then they do not know what it is that they think/believe.

There is nothing here but posturing. I content that Ethical studies show that all assumed moral standards are informed by the social context, and that it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Your only hope, as I see it, is to make a claim that morality is the consequence of human nature. Whilst it might be true that regards to self interest, preservation, and security might urge us to reason on what those codes may be, they have to be informed by the social situation which pertains historically and socially. You are yet to say anything in defense of your claim.

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

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).

Thank you for making my case for me. Now let's hear yours.


Again, I do not find this very objection very engaging. It seems to represent the same 'ole story with the same 'ole gounds, and is a well-worn and mistaken path for the identification of morality. I can only hope that your future rejoinders begin to take note of the differences between what little I've written and what you are evidently presupposing. Judging by the content of your response, those presuppositions have a high degree of influence upon the thought/belief that follows. These have included but are not limited to, the numerous non sequiturs expressed throughout your reply. The following is prima facie evidence of just that.

More posturing. Where's the content?

TO go further would be an appeal to a divine legislative authority; or a set of Platonic values that exist out there in the ether somewhere.

Poisoning the well with false dilemma based upon a non-sequitur. Presupposing being privy to another's current and/or future mental activities tends to negatively alter that which can be mentally apprehended. Confirmation bias. Given the fact that you're not yet privy to my position or it's ground, it is quite clear to me that your rejoinders are sorely lacking.

You are time wasting.

Let's have it then!!!

Maybe you are testing the waters to see if you actually have anything? It seems to me all you are doing is building up to play Devil's advocate on a position you have not really thought through yet.
Of you might have been holding on to this common place assumption erroneously.
But if you don't make a case and answer any of my questions, this will definitely be my last communication to you on this topic.

In practice there is no 'absolute' from which to draw a distinction between a thing believed and that thing, because, say, if you believe killing is wrong, there is nothing more than that - a belief.

As I've already said, I do not argue 'absolutes', unless that is, I'm pointing the inherent self-contraction contained in the all too common, intellectual and philosophically immature claim that "there are no absolutes". That is an absolute claim, in and of itself. As such, it is self-defeating. On another note, why invoke the terms 'right and wrong' to argue against what I've written? I didn't invoke them in support of my position - nor would I. They do not, themselves, do much to facilitate the ability to understand what morality is. I'm putting it to you that the conventional conception of morality is wrong. In order for a reader to understand how I justify that claim, s/he must first pay close attention.

Strawman!! I don't have to claim that a statement that claims their are no moral absolutes means that such a statement is an absolute statement. Your response is a childish and playful one and not relevant. My statement is factual, I make no claim that anything is absolute - that is beyond the realm of what is evident.

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

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.

Yes, thanks for making my argument. I wait with bated breath for yours.


Thus, due to this simple foundation, the need arises to properly identify morality.

It is a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking to assert that morality is an emergent property of the Universe, when there is only evidence to suggest that it is only a property of human thinking. No humans = no morality. It is subject to human need.

Sorry - Have to pick my son up from the station - LATER



Tell me, if you could/would...

1. Enumerate all of the "characteristic[s] of a Theistic way of thinking"?
2. Do those constitute necessary and sufficent evidence/reason to conclude that if any and/or all are present, then we must only conclude that the claim itself is necessarily "ridiculous", and therefore we must dismiss it prior to contemplation?
3. The claim clearly said "the universe and/or it's contents". That was not included.
4. Misrepresenting what is written via omission, whether intentional/deliberate or accidental, is a misrepresentation none-the-less. For now, I'm giving the benefit of doubt. Call it well-intended charity.



Now to the simple point...

5. Humans are contents of the universe. That is a fact.
6. You're open admission that morality is a property of human thought/belief (inadvertantly?) renders you're position unjustifiable. You've just removed your own ground while simultaneuosly aligning your own position with the very thing that you earlier called "a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking".

Again, not very interesting, nor compelling.

Your paragraph begining "Morality" and ending "meta-ethical" is incoherent.

Evidently we have two very different notions of what constitutes being "incoherent". You've baldly asserted incoherence on my part, and I've actively shown how yours is. Ironically enough, that is the first time that that has been said about that particular description. Given that the objection began by denying morality as a property, and later contrary to that denial, called it a property of thought/belief leaves little more to be said on my part. You've succeeded in rendering your own position untenable.

As for LP - you still have not answered my questions.

I'm not interested in discussing modern day ethics. I'm analyzing that which necessarily grounds it.

LP might seem like a good way to begin the analysis of morality, but I doubt whether it has much utility.

You're entitled to personal doubt. Given that doubt itself is necessarily grounded upon pre-existing belief(s), for clarity's sake alone, would you care to openly and clearly assert that belief(or set thereof), and then justify holding it(them)? Perhaps then you would also be willing to take the time to figure out whether or not those particular beliefs match up to my position, prior to posting.

creativesoul wrote:Influenced by Spinoza, Kant, Hume, Heidegger, Jung, Ayers, Witt, Lao Tzu and too many others to list. Favorite topics are morality(which I hold an unconventional conception of), trust, truth, thought, and belief. No formal training to speak of. Not much else to say for the moment...

creativesoul wrote:
PART TWO

It is a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking to assert that morality is an emergent property of the Universe, when there is only evidence to suggest that it is only a property of human thinking. No humans = no morality. It is subject to human need.

Tell me, if you could/would...

1. Enumerate all of the "characteristic[s] of a Theistic way of thinking"?
2. Do those constitute necessary and sufficent evidence/reason to conclude that if any and/or all are present, then we must only conclude that the claim itself is necessarily "ridiculous", and therefore we must dismiss it prior to contemplation?
3. The claim clearly said "the universe and/or it's contents". That was not included.
4. Misrepresenting what is written via omission, whether intentional/deliberate or accidental, is a misrepresentation none-the-less. For now, I'm giving the benefit of doubt. Call it well-intended charity.

Waffle. I don't have to enumerate ALL Theists thinking, only the one type already innumerated that morality derives from God.
That is a claim that is palpably ridiculous.
It is a claim you share, but have not supported nor have you explained.

Now to the simple point...

5. Humans are contents of the universe. That is a fact.
6. You're open admission that morality is a property of human thought/belief (inadvertantly?) renders you're position unjustifiable. You've just removed your own ground while simultaneuosly aligning your own position with the very thing that you earlier called "a ridiculous claim characteristic of a Theistic way of thinking".

Rubbish. I am saying that morality is a characteristic of humans.
You are suffering from a category error - Get a Life!
We are adjusted to Nature, Nature is not adjusted to us.
It does not rain so that our crops will grow, nor does the sunshine to make us smile.
Your objection is hopelessly mired in anthropocentrism. You will really have to do better than that!

Your paragraph begining "Morality" and ending "meta-ethical" is incoherent.

Evidently we have two very different notions of what constitutes being "incoherent". You've baldly asserted incoherence on my part, and I've actively shown how yours is. Ironically enough, that is the first time that that has been said about that particular description. Given that the objection began by denying morality as a property, and later contrary to that denial, called it a property of thought/belief leaves little more to be said on my part. You've succeeded in rendering your own position untenable.


Let's cut to the chase and lets hear your argument - if you have one.

As for LP - you still have not answered my questions.

I'm not interested in discussing modern day ethics. I'm analyzing that which necessarily grounds it.


I see - so not only have you no argument - but you also say things you cannot support.

It make me wonder why you are bothering to contribute to this Forum.

LP might seem like a good way to begin the analysis of morality, but I doubt whether it has much utility.

You're entitled to personal doubt. Given that doubt itself is necessarily grounded upon pre-existing belief(s), for clarity's sake alone, would you care to openly and clearly assert that belief(or set thereof), and then justify holding it(them)? Perhaps then you would also be willing to take the time to figure out whether or not those particular beliefs match up to my position, prior to posting.

Claim 1.

The SEP article on the 'definition' equates morality with a code of conduct. That is an all too common (mis)conception on my view.

Claim 2.

Morality consists of universally extant and 'rules'/laws and principles that all thought/belief formation is contingent upon...

creativesoul wrote:

Claim 1.

The SEP article on the 'definition' equates morality with a code of conduct. That is an all too common (mis)conception on my view.

Codes of conduct are standards of behavior that are established/based upon that which is already considered to be acceptable/unacceptable thought/behavior and as such, they vary according to social circumstances.

Sorry buddy, I'm not as stupid as you think. You will have to decide whether you mean 'based' OR " established. This is exactly the question that is being begged.
No, these things are NOT "already", you are lacking a sense of history. Which is also a question begging case. Clearly you are assuming that morals are a precedent.
So in making your case you are assuming the answer.


Equating morality to codes of conduct equates morality itself with all individual, particular 'moral' belief.
'Moral' belief is belief about what is acceptable/unacceptable, 'right/wrong', 'good/evil', and those things purportedly represent that which is moral/immoral. Thus, that equation creates an inherent set of contradictions, because 'moral' belief is influenced by individual particulars that are only extant within a limited number of cases.

Where is the contradiction?

It also equates belief about X with X. It is a matter of logic that belief about X and X are distinct. We cannot gain much insight to what constitutes universal morality by focusing upon the differences in moral belief/codes of conduct.

Sorry but this is gibberish. Have you swallowed Tractatus whole?
But you are right that we cannot say what constitutes universal morality - because morality is not universal QED.
Thanks for making my case.

Let us instead, challenge the conventional position by slightly altering the approach.

You have not stated any position.

We must examine the individual particulars in order to seek out the objective common denominators; that which is universally extant after removing the individual particulars.

You can , but that won't help. An objective case is a collection of subjective cases that happen to agree; that does not make it universal.



Examining the differences in subjective opinion and/or belief about X, tells us nothing about X.

Then why should I listen to your subjective position?

Positing that morality is a property of the universe and/or it's contents comes with a burden.

Yes, the burden of meaninglessness. My big toes is a property of the Universe - that does not make my big toe Universal.
It makes more sense to call it a property of ME, just like it makes more sense to call morality a human property.


You've already admitted that morality is a property of human thought/belief. It does not follow that morality is thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behavior(codes of conduct).

Empirically it makes perfect sense - because it is evident.


So, it is rather unproblematic to say that morality is - by virtue of being a property of thought/belief - a property of the universe and/or it's contents.

But meaningless (see above). And not the same as calling it universal.

This holds good unless one wishes to claim that human thought/belief are not contents of the universe. However, that claim is quite clearly - reductio ad absurdum.

The Universe is not characterised by human thought.

Claim 2.

Morality consists of universally extant and 'rules'/laws and principles that all thought/belief formation is contingent upon...

That is a conclusion arrived at through very complex methodological analysis. The groundwork must be layed in order to 'pave the way'. Given that morality is a property of human thought, the individual elements which when combined, constitute being necessary and sufficient for morality cannot all be subject to(created within) the mind. It would only follow that morality cannot be man-made even if it seems to require us for it's existence. This holds, if for no other reason, than thought/belief formation necessarily presupposes elements/concepts of moral import. Examining thought/belief is necessary for the instantiation of universal morality, but it simply does not follow that universal morality is created within human thought/belief. It does follow that universal morality, in order to come into existence, depends upon the thought/belief formation of a subject capable of complex thinking and self-direction. Understanding that unique sort of existence, requires a subject capable of abstract thinking skills. So, in that sense, universal morality is mind-dependent for both it's existence and the justification of such. However, it does not follow that morality is created within the mind. It only follows that thought/belief formation are necessary elements for the emergence of universal morality. That claim may seem a little strange or incoherent, however because we know that we are both objects in the world, and subjects taking an account of it, we also know that universal morality being contingent upon thought/belief is not ground for concluding it's being man-made. My position, to remain coherent, only requires all individual particular 'moral' belief and ethical/moral codes to necessarily converge upon, and/or strictly adhere to(either knowingly or unknowingly) the universally extant laws/principles of thought/behavior that constitute being universal morality.