Did you notice my references to “firist order” and “higher order”?
This is a black box. Explain what they mean and how you generate the connection between the two.
By using rational-should as an intermediate.
You claim that a rational-should exists. Prove it.
Sometimes you need to follow impersonal, universaliable,...maybe even objective...moral reasoning?
Using objective principles as a tool to evaluate tradeoffs between subjective values is not the same as using objective principles to produce moral truths.
i don’t know why you think “do what thou wilt” is morlaity. It would be like having a system of logic that can prove any claim.
That’s not my definition of morality, it’s the conclusion I end up with. Your analogy doesn’t seem valid to me because I don’t conclude that all moral claims are equal but that all desires are good. Repressing desires or failing to achieve desires is bad. Additionally, its clear to me why a logical system that proves everything is good is bad, but why would a moral system that did the same be invalid?
“All the better for me” does not mean “optimal morality”. The job of logic is not to prove everything I happen to believe, and the job of morality is not to confirm all my impulses.
I agree. I didn’t claim either of those things. Morality doesn’t have a job outside of distinguishing between right and wrong.
What’s weird? Empathy? Morality? Ratioanlity?
The idea that all principles you act upon must be universalizable. It’s bad because individuals are different and should act differently. The principle I defend is a universalizable one, that individuals should do what they want. The difference between mine and yours is that mine is broad and all people are happy when its applied to their case, but yours is narrow and exclusive and egocentric because it neglects differences in individual values, or holds those differences to be morally irrelevant.
Not necessarily. There might be a surplus.
But if you want to say that everything effects others, albeit to a ti y extent, then it follows that everything is a tiny bit moral.
Subtraction, have you heard of it?
Some things are neutral even though they effect others.
That statement needs some justification. Is it better to do good things voluntarily, or because you are forced to?
Voluntarily, because that means you’re acting on your values.
OK, I though ti was something like that. The things is that subjects can have values which are inherently interpersonal and even objective...things like empathy and rationality. So “value held by a subject” does not imply “selfish value”.
If I valued rationality, why would that result in specific moral decrees? Value held by a subject doesn’t imply selfish value, but it does imply that the values of others are only relevant to my morality insofar as I empathize with those others.
Yet agian, objective morality is not a case of one subject being motivated by another subjects values. Objectivity is not achieved by swapping subjects.
“Objectivity” in ethics is achieved by abandoning individual values and beliefs and trying to produce statements which would be valued and believed by everyone. That’s stupid because we can never escape the locus of the self and because morality emerges from internal processes and neglecting those internal processes means that there is zero foundation for any sort of morality. I’m saying that morality is only accessible internally, and that the things which produce morality are internal subjective beliefs.
If you continue to disagree, I suggest we start over. Let me know and I’ll post an argument that I used last year in debate. I feel like starting over would clarify things a lot because we’re getting muddled down in a line-by-line back-and-forth hyperspecific conversation here.
This is a black box. Explain what [first order and higher order] mean and how you generate the connection between the two.
Usual meaning in this type of disucssion.
You claim that a rational-should exists. Prove it.
If I can prove anything to you, you are already running on rational_should.
Using objective principles as a tool to evaluate tradeoffs between subjective values is not the same as using objective principles to produce moral truths.
Why not?
That’s not my definition of morality, it’s the conclusion I end up with.
That doens’t help. It;s not morality whether it’s assumed or concluded.
The idea that all principles you act upon must be [is weird]
It’s bad because individuals are different and should act differently.
Individuals are different and would act differntly. You are arguing as though people should never
do anythng unless it is morally obligated, as though moral rules are all encompassing. I never
said that. Morality does not need to detemine evey action any more than civil law does.
The principle I defend is a universalizable one, that individuals should do what they want.
That isn’t universalisable because you don;t want to be murdered.
The correct form is “individuals should do what they want unless it harms another”.
The difference between mine and yours is that mine is broad and all people are happy when its applied to their case,
We don’t have it.
if people wanted your principle, they would abolish all laws.
but yours is narrow and exclusive and egocentric
!!!
If I valued rationality, why would that result in specific moral decrees?
Look at examples of people arguing about morality.
ETA: Better restrict that to liberals.
There’s plenty about, even on this site.
Value held by a subject doesn’t imply selfish value, but it does imply that the values of others are only relevant to my morality insofar as I empathize with those others.
Nope. Rationality too.
“Objectivity” in ethics is achieved by abandoning individual values and beliefs
Of course not. It is a perfectly acceptable principle that people should be allowed to realise
their values so long as they do not harm others. Where do you ge these ideas?
and trying to produce statements which would be valued and believed by everyone.
Just everyone rational. The police are there for a reason
That’s stupid because we can never escape the locus of the self and because morality emerges from internal processes
Yet again: we can internally value what is objective and impartial. “In me” doesn’t imply “for me”.
and neglecting those internal processes means that there is zero foundation for any sort of morality.
“Neglect” is your straw man.
I’m saying that morality is only accessible internally, and that the things which produce morality are internal subjective beliefs.
Yet again: “In me” doesn’t imply “for me”.
If you continue to disagree, I suggest we start over. Let me know and I’ll post an argument that I used last year in debate. I feel like starting over would clarify things a lot because we’re getting muddled down in a line-by-line back-and-forth hyperspecific conversation here.
This is a black box. Explain what they mean and how you generate the connection between the two.
You claim that a rational-should exists. Prove it.
Using objective principles as a tool to evaluate tradeoffs between subjective values is not the same as using objective principles to produce moral truths.
That’s not my definition of morality, it’s the conclusion I end up with. Your analogy doesn’t seem valid to me because I don’t conclude that all moral claims are equal but that all desires are good. Repressing desires or failing to achieve desires is bad. Additionally, its clear to me why a logical system that proves everything is good is bad, but why would a moral system that did the same be invalid?
I agree. I didn’t claim either of those things. Morality doesn’t have a job outside of distinguishing between right and wrong.
The idea that all principles you act upon must be universalizable. It’s bad because individuals are different and should act differently. The principle I defend is a universalizable one, that individuals should do what they want. The difference between mine and yours is that mine is broad and all people are happy when its applied to their case, but yours is narrow and exclusive and egocentric because it neglects differences in individual values, or holds those differences to be morally irrelevant.
Subtraction, have you heard of it?
Some things are neutral even though they effect others.
Voluntarily, because that means you’re acting on your values.
If I valued rationality, why would that result in specific moral decrees? Value held by a subject doesn’t imply selfish value, but it does imply that the values of others are only relevant to my morality insofar as I empathize with those others.
“Objectivity” in ethics is achieved by abandoning individual values and beliefs and trying to produce statements which would be valued and believed by everyone. That’s stupid because we can never escape the locus of the self and because morality emerges from internal processes and neglecting those internal processes means that there is zero foundation for any sort of morality. I’m saying that morality is only accessible internally, and that the things which produce morality are internal subjective beliefs.
If you continue to disagree, I suggest we start over. Let me know and I’ll post an argument that I used last year in debate. I feel like starting over would clarify things a lot because we’re getting muddled down in a line-by-line back-and-forth hyperspecific conversation here.
Usual meaning in this type of disucssion.
If I can prove anything to you, you are already running on rational_should.
Why not?
That doens’t help. It;s not morality whether it’s assumed or concluded.
Individuals are different and would act differntly. You are arguing as though people should never do anythng unless it is morally obligated, as though moral rules are all encompassing. I never said that. Morality does not need to detemine evey action any more than civil law does.
That isn’t universalisable because you don;t want to be murdered. The correct form is “individuals should do what they want unless it harms another”.
We don’t have it. if people wanted your principle, they would abolish all laws.
!!!
Look at examples of people arguing about morality.
ETA: Better restrict that to liberals.
There’s plenty about, even on this site.
Nope. Rationality too.
Of course not. It is a perfectly acceptable principle that people should be allowed to realise their values so long as they do not harm others. Where do you ge these ideas?
Just everyone rational. The police are there for a reason
Yet again: we can internally value what is objective and impartial. “In me” doesn’t imply “for me”.
“Neglect” is your straw man.
Yet again: “In me” doesn’t imply “for me”.
If you like.
I don’t want to spend any more time on this. I’m done.