i suppose that since the thread now has a thesis you may want to have it returned to the philosophy thread possibly.
Are you sure about that?
But how do we decide whose judgment is more reasonable in the absense of a transcendental or an omniscient point of view? If people express different moral judgments about abortion for example to what extent can philosophy resolve the dispute?
Yes, this seems to be a cross-cultural occurence. And how could it not be so? Whenever folks interact socially, politically and economically there are going to be disputes and out and out conflicts. If we weren’t hard-wired somehow to deal with this we would not have invented rules of behavior.
Animals make distinctions between true and false though, for instance. If they didn’t, they’d die off pretty quickly - i.e. they’d eat the wrong mushroom or something. And since animals behave according to social rules, and suffer consequences when they don’t, they must then distinguish between right and wrong. They certainly distinguish between good and bad, as they make choices in their lives. A housecat, given a choice between two laps to leap into, will choose one of them - or choose neither of them.
Yes, this is true. But for animals it is always either/or. They do not engage in the is/ought distinction that we do. Or not anywhere near the sophistication with which we pursue it.
Right and wrong, in other words, is basically a function of instinct.
Thus philosophical language is of minimal use here with respect to moral and ethical choices.
Now, with the human species, is/ought is everywhere—as is philosophical language. My speculation revolves around the extent to which this philosophical language [the language of Kant, for example] is stymied in attempts to resolve moral conflicts.
People make and wear clothing. If any other animals do this, I’m not aware of it. Some people make and wear really elaborate clothing that serves no purpose. As far as I can tell, this clothing does not much affect a person’s basic biology, though I suspect a tight girdle might give you indigestion and make it hard to breathe.
I’m not sure I understand your point. People making and wearing clothing is not very often construed as a moral conflict.
But it can be. For example, some people make clothing out of fur. Other people are outraged by this. They claim it is unethical to slaughter animals for their pelts. Is this true?
How would a philosopher approach it rationally?
I meant for clothing to be a metaphor for language, and overly fancy clothing a metaphor for some philosophical language.
Ah, a metaphor. Sorry, I missed that.
As I see it, some philosophical language is overly fancy in the sense that the arguments used are basically just words defining and defending other words.
Right, so what I’m arguing is that I disagree with your statement, “We need a language then to sort these conflicts out and decide which behaviors are deemed appropriate and which are not.” Or if there is some truth to it, I think it is overstated. With respect to your question about the limits of philosophical language in exploring moral values, I’d say that philosophical language is nearly impotent in exploring moral values.
I could easily be wrong though. I’m open to the possibility.
I believe that philosophical language is impotent in resolving moral values in conflict. But it can explore them though. Still, what happens is that the words that become concepts and the concepts that become argument reach a point where they just loop back onto each other. They become tautological in that the words end up pointing only to other words to define and defend them.
But when the words are brought down to earth and made to point at actual behaviors in conflict, nothing ever gets resolved. We have been arguing back and forth now for thousands of years about hundreds and hundreds of moral issues and none of them have ever been embraced by all in one way rather than another.
morality itself comes from God
There are different places where one can assert that. In a church, around the table at a family dinner, in a philosophy venue.
Regarding the latter context, however, you can be sure such an assertion will be challenged.
Why should I believe this is true?
But here again the limitations of philosophical language used to explore things like this quickly comes into play. In other words, sooner or latter we will both be forced to rely on premises that are backed up solely be the manner in which we accept the meaning of the words used in them. And thus any conclusions averred will be predicated on these assumptions in turn. Then we just go around and around in circles.
not sure if this has any relevance…but existence itself is circular 
God bless
-hth
Well, if by that you mean we come from nothingness only to return to it again for eternity, that’s true.
But then that greatly disturbs many people. So, among other things, they invents God to make those feelings go away.
It doesn’t work that way for me though because I cannot just believe in something without empirical or analytical arguments that might make it seem reasonable to believe it.
well…i am actually a believer
if i understand you correctly i believe you are incorrect…one can always put themself in another’s shoes and try to understand where he is coming from and what he means…the inability of one to do that could simply be considered stubborness for simplicity’s sake but that does not mean if one person is stubborn that the other person is stubborn as well…for instance i could have countless arguments with a stubborn person but that does not mean that i am stubborn and am not willing to try and understand the other person just because that person is stubborn and not willing to try and understand me…his negativeness can only reflect on me so much as i allow it to…and then you could also have two people that are both willing to try and understand the other person’s thinking and usually it leads to learning on both sides (but it doesnt change the fact that one could be completely right over the other 
)
Well, I don’t see the point of going around and around in that circle. Let’s just agree to disagree.
in practical terms resolving moral disputes in the absence of an absolute or objective ethical standard is a matter of persuasion - it IS possible, and it happens, but slowly over time as social consensus builds and evolves