Spirituality
08 Jul 09
22 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGod! I hope we are reading the same thing.
You're better off reading his post than my doubtless faulty synopsis. Don't be scared. Then we can compare synopses and see whether we were reading the same thing.
I've got daniel's bs to contend with after i go to bed.
(no offence daniel)
22 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello…It seems clear that your stance is anti-realist in that you would deny that there are any actual referents for moral terms and concepts.
I have a question of clarification concerning your stance. It seems clear that your stance is anti-realist in that you would deny that there are any actual referents for moral terms and concepts. For instance, I am sure you would deny that the moral faculty (as in, our ability and propensity to think in moral terms, to make moral judgments, etc) is actu riptive understanding of doxastic (ir)rationality you are employing.
...
-I am not sure if I have understood you here but I think so -yes.
But note that I am not “anti-realist” in the more general sense of the term (if I have understood its meaning correctly).
…if you think that moral beliefs/statements serve to express propositions but that such propositions are always false because there are no moral facts to which they could correspond,
….
Yes, that’s my general position.
…On the other hand, if you think moral beliefs/statements serve principally to express emotions (not propositions),
…..
Well, moral beliefs/statements don’t mean that for me.
But I wouldn’t deny that for some (but I assume not most) people this IS purely what moral beliefs/statements mean but then I wouldn’t be talking about the same thing as they do when I talk about “moral”.
…it would seem that thinking in moral terms (whether we like it or not, and even if there happens to be no actual referents for such terms) is pretty deeply ingrained in us.
...
Most of us -I agree. But I don’t think it is a very logical way to think though.
I see this predisposition for us to think ‘morally’ as one of “evolution’s blunders”.
-sorry for not giving a more comprehensive response to your post -you say a great deal in that post!
I think you post ‘requires’ a more comprehensive response.
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat about your likes and dislikes - do they exist? You don't experience them as such. They are more a set of rules that can affect whether or not you experience happiness.
-I can experience the emotion of "happiness" so I know the emotion of "happiness" exists (even though I don’t know how to define it).
I would not deny the existence of anything that is verifiable by experience.
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloClear; however, thinking in moral terms is just a result of one's dualistic approach. You see, I believe that life is sacred -and I feel not the need to back up morally this approach of mine, just as I feel not the need to back up morally my approach that I will kill on the spot whoever threats deadly the persons I love.
I have a question of clarification concerning your stance. It seems clear that your stance is anti-realist in that you would deny that there are any actual referents for moral terms and concepts. For instance, I am sure you would deny that the moral faculty (as in, our ability and propensity to think in moral terms, to make moral judgments, etc) is actu ...[text shortened]... riptive understanding of doxastic (ir)rationality you are employing.
As you see, my conclusion that "life is sacred" is not a product of my "morality" but a product of my intelligence.
And this is the flip side: a pure product of the human mind, morality seems to me “empty”. We spend our energy in order to have this beloved fortress well constructed for social and personal purposes, but by the time we realized it is just another product of ours, of our ego, designed to establish a prosper life (the way each society perceive it) for us and for everyone, we would better let it drop out. I am always free to choose which products of mine will make a product out of me, that is.
So, when I try to spot the “inner meaning” and the “deeper purpose” of the so called morality, the sole thing I see is just Us. Therefore I break the cause-effect chain. And I see no reason to put "morality" above my intelligence.
Do you?
😵
22 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead…What about your likes and dislikes - do they exist?
What about your likes and dislikes - do they exist? You don't experience them as such. They are more a set of rules that can affect whether or not you experience happiness.
...
Of course.
…You don't experience them as such. They are more a set of rules that can affect whether or not you experience happiness.
….
Yes, and I can verify the existence of those “rules” by seeing what my various experiences of happiness correlate with.
So I would say the belief in the existence of those ‘rules’ (and hence the existence of likes and dislikes) is verifiable by the evidence that I can personally observe within me thus I conclude that my likes and dislikes exist.
-not sure how this would relate to what is “moral” for I don’t see how any observation/evidence can logically verify or give credence to the hypothesis of the existence of “moral”.
22 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDo they? Can you demonstrate a substance called Happiness?
[b]…What about your likes and dislikes - do they exist?
...
Of course.[/b]
Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks for taking the trouble to make the case, better than I could have.
I have a question of clarification concerning your stance. It seems clear that your stance is anti-realist in that you would deny that there are any actual referents for moral terms and concepts. For instance, I am sure you would deny that the moral faculty (as in, our ability and propensity to think in moral terms, to make moral judgments, etc) is actu ...[text shortened]... riptive understanding of doxastic (ir)rationality you are employing.
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think the word "moral" takes on various meanings but one of them is a sort of human instinct that I believe has evolved due to our need to live in societies. If we wish to cooperate we must respect others likes and dislikes and to some extent demand that they respect ours. To a large extent I say something is 'morally wrong' if it impinges on someones likes or causes someones dislikes. But I can think of no good reason why you should follow that 'code' other than self interest or instinct on your part, but I still maintain that the code is as existent as your likes or dislikes.
-not sure how this would relate to what is “moral” for I don’t see how any observation/evidence can logically verify or give credence to the hypothesis of the existence of “moral”.
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour mind is the agent that offers you the experience of the experience that "you" experience. It seems to me that you use solely your mind in order to experience whatever you experience. Your mind determines your nature and it conducts this process according to its own nature, therefore your nature is just the nature of your mind (if you disagree, then kindly please show me an existence beyond your mind).
[b]…I don't know if this is a good analogy, but would you equally argue that "happiness" does not exist?
...
-I can experience the emotion of "happiness" so I know the emotion of "happiness" exists (even though I don’t know how to define it).
I would not deny the existence of anything that is verifiable by experience/evidence.[/b]
Now, what is the nature of the "reality" of the emotion of happiness that you experience?
😵
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleI want to see what happens if I ask you these questions:
Your mind is the agent that offers you the experience of the experience that "you" experience. It seems to me that you use solely your mind in order to experience whatever you experience. Your mind determines your nature and it conducts this process according to its own nature, therefore your nature is just the nature of your mind (if you disagree, then ...[text shortened]... ow, what is the nature of the "reality" of the emotion of happiness that you experience?
😵
Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt appears that you dont mind whether AH or blackbeetle answers your questions so how about me?
I want to see what happens if I ask you these questions:
Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
1.yes
2.yes
3.it is a virtue but not always in the short term..
4.i suppose it does until they stop being virtuous.
5. anythings possible.
Now where are you going with these questions?
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMany times I was in touch with helpful persons.
I want to see what happens if I ask you these questions:
Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
Helpfulness exists as an extrapolation of the awareness of the mind of the helpful person.
Helpfulness is the result of a specific modification of the mind. Helfulness can be evaluated at a given spacetime and at given circumstances as a virtue, as stupidity, as an attitude that plays no role at all, etc.
Possesing virtues is possible by means that one has the potential to keep his mind focused at a specific necessary modification within a given spacetime. A "virtue" at its core is merely our IQ/ EQ know-how regarding the proper use of our dynamism within our given society, therefore it is "empty", it has no existence on its own.
You behave the way your intelligence urges you to behave. If you are determined to apply a certain "virtue", you will apply it.
😵
22 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleSo the short answer to 'does virtue exist' is 'yes and no'.
Many times I was in touch with helpful persons.
Helpfulness exists as an extrapolation of the awareness of the mind of the helpful person.
Helpfulness is the result of a specific modification of the mind. Helfulness can be evaluated at a given spacetime and at given circumstances as a virtue, as stupidity, as an attitude that plays no role at all, ...[text shortened]... s you to behave. If you are determined to apply a certain "virtue", you will apply it.
😵