(May 19, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If there ever evolved a politics to where living at the expense of the young was considered wrong, we might open up additional options for self termination.

Hopefully you find that idea terrifying, on the same par as forced sterilization of the mentally challenged and/or eugenics.

(May 19, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If there ever evolved a politics to where living at the expense of the young was considered wrong, we might open up additional options for self termination.

Hopefully you find that idea terrifying, on the same par as forced sterilization of the mentally challenged and/or eugenics.

No, not particularly. I trust the moral instinct to arrive at decent solutions to the problems of living. Many people are mortified at the prospect of abortions. Many aren't. It's the collective response which determines morality.

(May 19, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's the collective response which determines morality.

Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

It is akin to the peasant majority realizing that the monarchy did not have the monopoly on morality.

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's the collective response which determines morality.

Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

Your principles hopefully lie in your gut rather than an ancient book. Where would you suggest we get our principles from?

(May 19, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Our morality appears to be a mix of subconscious drives with an icing of cultural framing on top. [...] But the subconscious part of morality seems rather inflexible, so I think we'd still have issues with killing.

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:31 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It's the collective response which determines morality.

Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

Slavery was okay back then, yes. Though many at the time did find it questionable, they just didn't think to do anything about it. But yes, that's morality for you. It evolves and adapts to evolving human thought and evolving civilization and other conditions/situations. We no longer view slavery as acceptable. That's moral progression. That's how it's always worked, no dictation from God.

It does not matter wither we like what's moral . The question is if it's moral . If I find a moral system scary that does not decide the morality of the system in question.

(May 19, 2017 at 7:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

Slavery was okay back then, yes. Though many at the time did find it questionable, they just didn't think to do anything about it. But yes, that's morality for you. It evolves and adapts to evolving human thought and evolving civilization and other conditions/situations. We no longer view slavery as acceptable. That's moral progression. That's how it's always worked, no dictation from God.

Indeed morals progress like all other human endeavors (this does not clash with objectivity )

(May 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Sounds pragmatic but not principled. I guess if everyone comes to think female genital mutilation is okay then it will be. Today slavery is wrong but it was okay in the 17th century. And exactly how does one define the collective response? Is 51% sufficient to determine if something is moral?

Your principles hopefully lie in your gut rather than an ancient book.  Where would you suggest we get our principles from?

(May 19, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Our morality appears to be a mix of subconscious drives with an icing of cultural framing on top.  [...]  But the subconscious part of morality seems rather inflexible, so I think we'd still have issues with killing.

Indeed Neo as with most of his ilk seem less concerned with the nature of moral truth and more about belaying moral worry. And enforcing moral comfort presuppositionaly. That does not seem very objective .

I don't think societies choose to change. They just do. It's a zeitgeist thing. You reach a critical number of individuals with a certain opinion and the society begins to shift to follow them or accommodate them or resist them. And probably some measure of all three at once.