The Death of Morality
Moral Fictionalism
Richard Joyce on what happens when falsehoods are too useful to throw out.
First, the “intellectual contraption” argument:
In my view, the “pickle” will always be there. Only, for me, that is derived from the manner in which I construe the “self” here as “fractured and fragmented”. On the other hand, what can epistemologists tell us definitively about this? What can we know objectively about human identity here as subsumed more or less in dasein or in deontology.
I merely make the assumption that morality is just the philosophical equivalent of “rules of behavior” in a world where there is no “for all practical purposes” choice other than to reward and punish particular behaviors in particular contexts.
There’s no getting around this in any specific community. Only the extent to which this revolves more around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.
Then the existential context:
Not exactly the context I would prefer. After all, how many of us have come across a situation where this particular “conflicting good” became a moral conflagration on the order of those that often pop up “on the news”? And of course it merely assumes [as with God and religion] that astrology is bunk.
But here we are…
This pops into my head: “It depends on the context.” Besides, how terrible can the consequences be when anyone “utters the sentence ‘Sagittarians are characteristically optimistic’”?
Instead, given a particular context, it is when the consequences can be dire if you rub people the wrong way with your own moral conviction that tends to preoccupy me the most. For example living in a totalitarian or theocratic regime where not toeing the line can get you arrested…or executed.
I find it amusing that you use words like conflagration and yet dont know basic English grammar and punctuation rules and your sentences and paragraphs resemble those of a bad high school student.
Conflagration should be quoted, viz., “conflagration.”
There should be a comma after the word “conflagration.”
You wrote “dont.” The word you want is “don’t.”
There should be a period after the words “punctuation rules,” and then you need to start a new sentence, omitting the word “and.”
“bad high school student” isn’t correct, because you are using a compound modifier. It should be as follows: “bad high-school student.” (Note the necessary hyphen.)
Haha all these grammar corrections are pulled out of your arse hahaha you two are funny lol dumb and dumber, nutter and nuttier… and even if I made these supposed mistakes, you are missing the point completely…
bro the shit you say makes zero sense, you accused satire from shitthyself of running like a chickenshit…here i am…define dasein and stop being a chickenshit bro…
Morality has to be qualified and when qualified as something that is an individual characteristic, it needs to be qualified further, and then it is not something that ‘IS’ because we are not speaking of something scientific, measurable by a scientific method, and definable concretely but a philosophical problem. You cant use words like morality or dasein or nature or evolution and not specify what you meant by them exactly. Another thing…with all the kooks giving their own definitions of dasein…without one snippet of reference to Heidegger(who invented, defined the word and the concept)…just insane dullards…shows who is who…if you are giving some other definition with minimal reference to Heidegger’s definition then you are either not understanding Heidegger who you claim to understand or are so insane, you take concepts of other people and modify them freely for some bizarre reason as if it helped anybody and did not make you look like a confused and pretentious clown. dasein is WHAT Heidegger defined it to be because he is the sole inventor of the word(he is not actually because he stole it and re-made it but ok…) and the concept and it is neither a common-place word or a popular philosophical/scientific concept that is arguable.
Nonsensical garbage that makes no sense. He is writing about dasein as if he has no clue what it is himself and is second-guessing a term he cant even define in the first place…dasein isn’t this, it isn’t that…its relation is this but it isn’t that…what the fuck is this shit even about??? plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiWor
in this article, dasein is quoted almost 300 times AND YET…NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF WHAT DASEIN IS, IS ACTUALLY PROVIDED!!!…go figure…ridiculous…
i dont have to answer that question because i almost drowned once trying to save a friend drowning in a river. the guy walked in a river section which was shallow up to his neck to show how tall he is(6.4±) and then that section had a steep drop due to a very strong current and my friend slipped and felt into the deep water and the strong current and I was the first one out of my friends to immediately react(and only one out of all the people on that beach to get into water) and move to help him…he grabbed me like every drowning idiot does and pulled me into the current himself so I kicked him away and punched his face and when he let go of me I pulled back and grabbed his hand and pulled him out of the deep water…I was never violent and ferocious(and still I am not) but I am not a coward and if things go bad I always pick up the initiative instead of freezing or going crazy…what about you???you ever put your neck on the line for somebody in the high and noble spirit of a volunteer???you ever stood up for your children???you ever pushed through pain to care for your children whilst very ill???you ever managed to stay merry and welcoming despite not sleeping for 2 days???
Something I wrote…
so, is slaughter of children fine based on dasein or your objectives???lets not blow smoke up asses and hide behind word-salads and get to the point…lets see an idiot say slaughter of children is perfectly fine because it happens in nature(???) and the only premise needed is an objective which authorizes such acts or a particular context…
The Death of Morality
Moral Fictionalism
Richard Joyce on what happens when falsehoods are too useful to throw out.
It’s important of course to include the word “theorist” here. After all, it’s one thing for David to argue that in theory punching babies is not immoral, and another thing altogether to defend that frame of mind in an actual community of human beings.
He might actually believe that “theoretically” in, say, a No God world, any and all behaviors can be rationalized given the assumption that “in the absence of God all things are permitted”. But how foolish might he be to state that in, say, your own community? Let alone punch a baby and try to defend it.
So…
Okay, so what if David, for whatever personal reason, has talked himself into believing that punching – even killing – one particular baby is justified. Perhaps the parents of the baby were responsible for the death of his own baby. Perhaps he is a complete sociopath and simply wants to know what such an experience would be like. My point is that in the absence of God there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to establish deontologically – necessarily – that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to refrain from punching or killing a baby.
That’s the world we live in if a transcending font cannot be established — secular or sacred.
And for those who are appalled at the very thought of killing a baby what of the arguments coming from the pro-life camp: that aborting the unborn is no less morally egregious.
A man that kills the baby is moral…you are confusing yourself…morality = ‘‘principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour’’, also: actions are not exactly identical to your morality…and the big struggle is to distinguish simple utilitarianism from morality, ie. Kant. By saying:
, you are already limiting the discussion to utilitarianism since you meddle reputation and reception and judgment(utilitarian motifs) with moral distinctions(wrong/right, what ought to be done, what not) which then becomes a problem of distinguishing between intentions and outcomes and potential since morality is not the only personal force that impacts the final outcome.
As an example: in the Nazi German camps for the Russian prisoners of war where millions of young Slavic were starved, cannibalism was rare and many chose certain death to cannibalism on the dead corpses…why??? did they need God to decide???did they need ILP and a cable???a time to think it through???some chose to die and not eat, some ate…if morality was a question of utilitarianism only they would all eat…and where in the Bible does it say one should not eat dead whilst starving to death in a concentration camp run by insane Germans loosing their shit over a failing war effort??? would YOU rather eat your dead friend or fall dead without cannibalizing him???
