You know what, I'm enjoying my conversation with smrk2, and I'm finding your approach to the topic of this thread kind of tilting, so I think I'll just let your comments itt thread go for now.

According to Universal Perscriptivism, the statement "Rape is wrong" is akin to saying "Don't rape" which is an imperative and does not indicate true or false. And since we want the moral statement to be universal and logically coherent there is still some objective value and thus not nihilistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_...m#Expressivism
Not all forms of non-cognitivism are forms of moral nihilism, however: notably, the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism.

I guess you’re right. I stand corrected.

Out of curiosity does universal prescriptivism tie in somehow with Buddhist morality?

Nah, just an ill-fated attempt to get justice for hedgehogs.

Morality is a relative concept and is actually a product of the dualistic nature of the physical universe where we have the notion of light dark good bad etc. If you believe that God is omniscient and omnipresent than there is no duality from his perspective, everything just "is". In this sense morality can exist without God since its more or less a product of human perception.

It only ties in to Buddhism in my warped mind.

However, I have been reading a lot on ethics lately - not necessarily Buddhist ethics per se. I have to agree with the HH Dalai Lama, we need to have an ethical discussion that is not rooted in a specific religion.

I think if you take the principle that all beings are attempting to move away from suffering, Universal Perscriptivism could provide some objective basis on which to analyze our moral judgments.

How can the descriptive claim of noncognitivism ever be true then if a majority of philosophers are cognitivists?

What is it that you think (playing a noncognitivist) that most people think morality is such that the descriptive claim of noncognitivism is true? For example, it is plausible to be a 'descriptive moral relativist' because it seems rather evident that people/cultures often have different moral standards, but it does not seem evident that most people think or act as if moral statements are not truth apt.

Alright, I'm happy to agree with what's emphasized here, but I never saw myself as saying anything different so I'm not sure if we're on the same page yet. I'll retract "ersatz", but if you're granting me that I can say that noncognitivist morality is somehow a lesser thing than what I thought it was, then that seems entirely consistent with my phrase that it's "not worth calling morality". To re-emphasize, I do not think that saying it's not worth calling morality is tantamount to the silly position that if noncognitivism were true then it is nevertheless false.

I think you're still reading too much into it (the intent was just to say that we don't typically judge philosophical theories by how many people think they are true), but the adequacy of the analogy is not relevant anymore. Maybe the descriptive element of noncognitivism is the hurdle here, so the previous few remarks address this.

Looking forward to the post, but I didn't quite say the Humean tradition of moral thought doesn't count as moral philosophy. Of course it counts as moral philosophy. However, either this tradition doesn't yield normativity -- and maybe that's not something worth losing sleep over -- or it yields normativity in a non-obvious way that I don't understand (which is not to say that moral realism yields normativity in an obvious way). If it doesn't yield normativity, it is not my view that all moral discourse is therefore arbitrary nonsense, but I am saying that I do not see how we justify our moral practices given that tradition.

I just noticed this in smrk2's post, from OrP:

I'm most definitely not a Kantian.

Carry on.

No they don't. Read some logic, like Hegel etc.
If you did't notice the world is going from bad to worse. As post-modernism (fake atheism aka new atheism) is gaining power, I can not help to think that it is supported by the propaganda systems of the new world. That being said if you have developed your intuitive thinking, you will right away see that morals with out foundation are not values.
When I was little I have listened to tons of reggae. When my friends start to make crazy dope pushing **** on the streets, they started abusing coke. I have never ever tried coke just because all my favorite reggae singers spoke against it. If there is no solid foundation our morals are changed by the time and place being. Therefor morals with out foundation are not values but plane reasoning which in itself is highly adaptable to other factors and elements.

What were the foundations of your morals to not take coke? "reggae singers" doesnt seem like a solid foundation...

The cognitivists aren't agreed on the nature of the properties which moral statements describe, if indeed they do. It's not a straight choice between cognitivism and non cognitivism given that there are various natural and non natural cognitive theories. These distinctions are often the response to legitimate non cognitive challenges. Error theory is a cognitivist non realist moral theory that I suspect you'd also find less than you want.

It seems to me the challenge for congnitivism is to identify these properties. One of the challenges from non cognitivism is that cognitive realism is ontologically expensive it requires there to be something moral statements describe.

Another is explaining how beliefs, generally considered to be inert, motivate action. A belief only prompts action if accompanied with a corresponding desire. The non cognitivist in claiming that a moral statement is one of desire gets to explain moral motivation in a way that a cognitivist doesn't.

The strongest challenge to non cognitivism seems that it requires the same statement to mean different things if it is asserted. Consider

P1 Murder is wrong.
P2 If murder is wrong Dave was wrong to kill his wife.
C Dave was wrong to kill his wife.

The non cognitivist has to hold that "murder is wrong" in P1 and P2 are different. In P1 it is asserted and so non cognitive, in P2 it is not asserted due to the presence of the conditional if and so it is cognitive. This means that for moral language modus ponens isn't valid and the challenge for non cognitivism is to demonstrate how moral language is different to any other.

I think it also has to answer how we intuit moral descriptions and how we generally consider that we can make moral progress.

Simon Blackburn has an interesting take on this, he considers moral statements truth apt on a minimal standard of truth aptness. Essentially if we all consider a statement truth apt it is, even when that statement is a desire generally not considered to be.

His is a quasi-realist but in essentially defending non cognitivism he's ceded the significant definition of truth aptness. It's interesting stuff and it seems churlish to note that it's a shame OrP never got round to that longer post given his contribution itt.

You guys make something that is so simple really complicated. Morals do not exist. What does exist is an individuals subjective value system.

In the same sense that blue does not exist, only an individual subjective perception?



You haven't shown that something does not exist, you have only claimed it is something and that this something is not what everyone else claims it is.

What do you mean blue doesn't exist? You mean people before you were born have labelled a certain pattern/colour and called that blue? like the word blue exists - b - l - u - e...thats there as letters to form a word. Now we all have to agree to that arrangement of letters and the pronunciation of the word blue and that this word referes to and points to the actual thing that is in fact blue.

The thing that exists that is actual blue say the sky for example is real but we can agree tomorrow that a word like "Yoluep" is now the new word for "blue". But that thing never changed for a moment for the sky is whatever it has always been.

Morals is like a set of rules or laws. I can drive down the wrong side of road if I want and break the rules set by others. But I don't value their rules or my own or the life of others. And I as a free agent in a random universe I can do whatever the hell I want thank you very much sir!

Morals (whatever that means to you) is a quest for power over others. And we do that by getting 51% of people to agree to whatever BS we are spinning.

Is murder wrong? Wrong to who? to the person who got murdered? to the family? to the killer? maybe the killer ****ing loves killing and doesn't give a dam about your silly moral laws perhaps even laughs at them. What argument are you going to provide if he doesn't value what the soicety values? The best society has got is power over the killer to do whatever they want to him. Now who is "morally" wrong, how dare soicety through someone in jail or possible kill them! is that not "wrong" ...oh no we can do because its the right thing to do...you mean you have power over that person to do so...oh no it was the right thing to do. Right to who? **** off with that BS cause I see through it. Its a quest for power you hide behind fancy words like morals. But its the same game everyone is playing, even the serial killer you guys lock up...just you guys are better at it than him.

Like what is morally wrong with suicide not a god dam thing. But you guys like to keep suckers alive who work in Mcds and all the other **** jobs so the economy keeps ticking over.

I'm not sure what is wrong with working at McDonald's. I haven't worked there myself, but I have had plenty of menial jobs in my life and had no problems with that.

What kind of job would make you "not a sucker", in your opinion?

Job? Don't want a job! Now If I had power over people ...oh wait I mean if I could provide a moral argument (phew!) that someone like me is incapable of working because I have aspergers then I might get stuff for free and let the other suckers...oh wait I mean hard working morally honest decent and stronger people than me (phew!)help a poor guy like me out with my cripplying disability.

DUCWIDT?

Hard to believe someone who will say this then say humans are evil.

Yeah evil probably isn't the right word I want to use not smart enough to think of the correct word. Perhaps what I mean is from my point of view is that people should be avoided (even though I can't avoid them all the time) or dealt with over a safe distance.

I wasn't asking if you wanted a job, I asked you what kind of job did not make someone a "sucker". You implied that people who worked at McDonald's were such "suckers".

Other than that your Aspergers is obviously a case where you are relatively high-functioning when it comes to communication, and I find it extremely unlikely that you are unable to work.

Anyjob where money makes money with little to no effort from the owner of said money. Like the stock market, investment banking or the such like.

My verbal communication skills are actually very poor hence why I find it easier to communicate over emails/fourms because I can edit/spell check etc...can't do that when words spew out of my mouth in real life (or when I s...ss...ssttt..ammer)

People go off and live in the woods as hermits all the time. Takes a lot of work though.

The people I know (not that many, but I know a couple) that works in finance are generally overworked and live as prisoners off their own cellphone. And yes, they hold high-ranking positions. I'd rather work at McD.

Yeah I would rather not get a job. Why don't you work in mcds?

These days, I am lucky enough to have an enjoyable career. If you are somehow trying insinuate some kind of hypocrisy, I sincerely suggest trying someone else. I have nothing but pride for the menial jobs I have had, and I certainly don't look down on such work or those who hold it.

Those views are on you and you only, so I suggest you stand for your opinions instead of trying to smudge them onto others.

Not safe for you office kids.