ToothyMaw

It seems to me that if people have free will they can choose to act on reasons; reasons as far as I can tell don't directly compel one to act a certai...

One could also argue from the point of the relativist that the realist has to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Do they exist out in the unive...

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it's a useful delineation. Truth can be subjective, but facts are, obviously, objective. It seems useless to ...

Does a statement of subjective preferences not correspond with the reality of one's beliefs? Is a moral belief held by a culture not a moral truth for...

:up: This in turn makes me consider if bodily pleasures should win out over some sort of "higher order" happiness. The addict might not be acting free...

However, what if they are in conflict? What then? Would the more pressing preference "best" serve to satisfy our preferences with respect to how we wa...

You seem to be saying that many of our preferences are based in a nomological view of human nature, and that they exist side by side with other prefer...

Good point. I'm mostly referring to instances in which the act is weighed via evaluation of reasons. That being said, I'll try to better explain what ...

Is that better?

Morality is a set of rules of the form " x is right to us" or "y is wrong to us." These rules can be used to judge concrete behavior. They also repres...

Well, it would have primacy most likely. I think most people would recognize how barbaric and stifling it would be to exile everyone who goes against ...

I agree; it would be barbaric and stifling to exile every person who is determined to act against the consensus. But there would have to be an enforce...

Thanks for the reply. I mean, Trump got elected, that's pretty much all that needs to be observed. Granted, Hillary sucked. Yeah, well, majority opini...

Sorry for fucking around with my comment so much.

If the statistics are represented as axioms they can be used to theoretically develop abstract rules via rational discourse. This would allow for grow...

Like I said earlier in the thread, the people would need to be polled often enough that we would have time to implement the axioms that result from th...

Perhaps someone is autistic, for example. Their greater attention to detail could be considered a boon, yet most people wouldn't consider being autist...

So what is inner peace or true happiness? Sorry if you already defined these terms, but I can't continue this discussion without knowing. Perhaps true...

I looked up the definition of sadistic, it is defined as: "deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others". So yes, by de...

Not to try to get the thread back on track, but what do you think of the consensus morality I describe? MSC keeps telling me it is fallacious, but I d...

This actually seems like the no true Scotsman fallacy: If one acts in a way that is sadistic in order to achieve happiness, you say they never were ac...

Actually, I see how it might be relevant. Doing what is right according to the consensus might interfere with your happiness theorem.

Thanks for elucidating that. I must say, that is pretty reasonable. And no, I wasn't playing devil's advocate, I genuinely believe that sadists can be...

What if someone derives inner peace from torturing small children? From causing immense amounts of suffering? I've known sadistic people, and they gen...

I didn't even make a reference to what is good in my last post. What are you referring to?

I'm not saying one isn't deciding; I'm saying that if one wants to be moral they have to decide a certain way. As for the oughts you provided: they do...

A moral act is an act you are compelled to take. Essentially it is what you ought to do. This is different from deciding what cereal to eat in the mor...

Based on what? Sophisticated language and deep contextual knowledge does not give an objective moral answer to anything. Were do the facts that inform...

I mean, we are naturally moral animals, to a certain degree, at least, if that means anything. It appears to have inherent value because it offers a g...

What exactly is fallacious about it? The claim isn't about something objective, it is about something subjective. It isn't like saying the earth isn't...

It provides an objective standard for any human, even if it is based on a consensus, and, thus, is subjective. This just makes it a more descriptive c...

So you believe in divine command theory, eh?

Alright, I'll engage with you, even if you are exceedingly acrimonious. The majority of humanity. It actually makes it considerably more cogent: certa...

Yes, this is the best I can do, I'm not a professional philosopher; I just like to dabble on occasion.

Literally just defined what morality would be in the post right before you: what is considered appropriate behavior for most humans some of the time. ...

I'll say it again then: if I define morality as "what is considered good behavior by most people some of the time" that means that if most people beli...

Alright, that's the last time I'm going to be snide. I mean it when I say thanks, Tzeentch, you make me think. Besides, circumstances do matter, along...

It totally is the opinion of the majority of people, yes, but the laws we currently abide by are implemented based on popular opinion or, even more of...

I'll summarize what I have posted previously: if one defines morality as "what is considered good behavior for most people some of the time" then it b...

You make a good if obvious point: circumstances and motivations are important. But these things would often be "baked into" the moral axioms that woul...

I agree, groups can't be agents. But nowhere did I call a group immoral; I just said that they hold immoral opinions.

Are we talking about moral agency or just the philosophical concept?

Phew! That was a close one :grimace:

Terminating their membership might decrease the number of people who hold the immoral opinions, but it would do nothing to decrease immoral behavior p...

Perhaps. Let me think.

They could still be moral agents on an individual level, however. Additionally, they would still remain in humanity. Or maybe they wouldn't be agents ...

Oooh. Okay. Yeah, that's a good point. I would say a group can be an agent if they can reach a consensus about a course of action and act on it. This ...

Interesting question, but how is it relevant?

Well, I'm happy you find it enticing. I think it is valid to discuss axioms; they are essentially just "a statement or proposition on which an abstrac...

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Thanks for that. I guess one would merely need to poll people about what they think on moral issues often and then di...