RE: Atheism and morality
July 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2013 at 4:12 pm by Inigo.)
(July 6, 2013 at 4:06 pm)genkaus Wrote:(July 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Inigo Wrote: Morality is not a 'system of ideas'. This is just so horribly confused it hurts. Morality is something we have an idea 'of'.
You are wrong by the very definition of morality. Morality is defined as a system of ideas differentiating between right and wrong. It is defined as code or a set of guidelines (which is a subset of ideas) to judge human behavior by. To ignore this simple truth and keep repeating that it is not a system of ideas is not just being confused, it is being willfully stupid.
(July 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Inigo Wrote: A normative moral theory is a theory about what morality instructs us to do. So, it is a theory about what all right acts have in common apart from their rightness, or what all wrong acts have in common apart from their wrongness. Utilitarianism is one such theory (not a very good one, but still). Deontological views constitute another family of such views. Virtue ethical views constitute another camp. Pluralist views another. And so on. THese are all views that attempt to articulate a pattern in what it is that morality instructs. But they do not constitute metaethical views. They are not telling us what morality 'is', only what it instructs us to do and be.
Normative ethics does not address the question of what morality is because it starts with that understanding. You know what all these "moral theories" have in common? They accept and understand that morality is a system of ideas that contains the guidelines to human behavior and then they all attempt to figure out what its content should be.
(July 6, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Inigo Wrote: What morality 'is' is something that instructs and favours and whose instructions have inescapable rational authority (it has other features as well but these are the least disputable, in my view).
Your view is wrong. What morality is is system of ideas that contains instructions as to how one should act - it does not instruct or favor.
(July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm)Inigo Wrote: The insane often recognise their own insanity. Any other pearls of wisdom to offer?
And yet, you don't recognize yours.
'Should' is a favouring, you total moron.
Here's my impression of you"
'Morality doesn't favour or instruct, it favours and instructs.
Morality is an idea. Ideas can't favour or instruct. But morality doesn't. It favours and instructs. It doesn't favour or instruct. It is an idea. ideas can't favour or instruct. So morality doesn't. It is a code of instructions. But those aren't instructions. They are instructions. Not instructions. Instructions. Not instructions.
I'm afraid I can't argue with someone this stupid, so byeeee
(July 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm)simplexity Wrote:(July 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Inigo Wrote: No, because instincts either aren't instructions, or they are only instructional due to being desires, which are things that can only exist in a mind.What I was describing was the agents system itself. You can describe us as agents, but you just proved all of our points again. Morality does not require anything outside of our own system of awareness. It is a system of ideas generated from a a group of instincts and thought patterns(sometimes these are manifested as desires). At least this is the most probable. And if you try hard enough you can stop yourself from blinking when something is thrown at your eyes. You are merely going way beyond the basis of morality and assuming it is both rationally inescapable and provides instructions, which it does not. Every morality only contains instructions, it does not instruct. We, as agents are the only ones that can use these ideas(instructions/codes) to instruct one another, or ourselfs, ie reflect.
When something approaches my eyes I, by instinct, close them. I am not instructed to close them. They just close. So I assume you do not mean this by an 'instinct'.
Perhaps you are referring to certain desires or urges that may arise in us. Well, they can direct us in a very real sense. However, these do not constitute counterexamples as the desires in question are an agent's and so you have merely confirmed that you can't get instructions from something non-agential. The only kind of thing that issues instructions is a mind with beliefs and desires. YOu don't show that to be false by bringing pointing to a mind's desires. I know desires can be a source of directions.
Inigo Wrote:BUt, for the millionth time, if you identify moral instructions with our desires then you will not be able to account for the inescapable rational authority of moral instructions. Hence, moral insstructions need to have their source elsewhere.Once again you are assuming without any reason that moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. I don't need to account for anything as moral instructions are simply not inescapably rational and they need not be. It is only a system of ideas regarding what we 'think' is right or wrong depending on our internal system. It does not even have to be slightly rational.
So, if an act is morally right you don't necessarily have reason to do it? It can be irrational to do what is moral, can it?