Moral Oughts

[Acrobat]

And if I say I’m okay with it being my last game professionally, than we would say okay.

We can see the goal here is relative.

But when most people make an equivalent moral statements, they’re appealing to some standard they see as absolute, as Wittgenstein points out.

If someone said “they’re okay with behaving badly, and they don’t want to behave any better”, that wouldn’t be seen as okay, something is not right about that, you ought to want to behave better.

Now maybe you and others here have developed your own particular moral language and meaning, but this is disconnected from the common moral language and it’s assumptions of most people, as highlighted by Wittgenstein.

I'm on the phone so can't comfortably quote bit by bit.

Regarding your last paragraph, prove it.

I am not seeing much difference between a moral ought and other types of oughts. You say relative this, relative that. But you haven't countered what I said earlier. Maybe if you meet the challenge right above, I'll be convinced.

Also I remind you, the OP argument is about oughts, not is's

That most people see morality along the line that Wittgenstein described, as the oughts as absolute rather than relative?

Well most people aren’t atheists, but are religious and subscribe to view of morality as part of some sort transcendent moral order. So it shouldn’t come a surprise that they see moral oughts, like thought shall not steal, etc.. as absolute.

Our moral language is pervaded by thousands of years of religious assumptions like this, perhaps primarily because religious views have always been the dominant views of most societies and cultures.