Read on Twitter
Morality is heuristic, which is why all attempts to systematize morality fail.
Moral axioms are derived from moral intuitions, which are adaptations to our complex social life.
Moral axioms are derived from moral intuitions, which are adaptations to our complex social life.
What is a heuristic? Itâs merely a guess; a fuzzy feeling, approximately right, ideally right in the general case.
When different heuristics collide, they often contradict. Moral dilemmas, far from illuminating moral reality, reveal what happens when you try to deify a heuristic
When different heuristics collide, they often contradict. Moral dilemmas, far from illuminating moral reality, reveal what happens when you try to deify a heuristic
All of us have moral intuitions. The sense of right and wrong feels like something bigger than us, something outside, more fundamental than any single person
As we all know, however, there is big problem, most succinctly render by Hume âis-oughtâ. I personally find all claims of moral realism to be circular https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1024007331611172865
The art of constructing an ontology of ethics lies in playing a shell game with yourself. You start with three shells, and under one of them is proposition you assume from the start. You spin them around and spin them around until you are dizzy. âHow did that get there?â
There is only one way to win the shell game of is and ought. You can transmute ought into is if you frame it in the context of a goal. Pursuant to goal X, I ought to do Y.
We can combine the observation that goals create oughts with a belief in an eternal omnipotent god, and in this way, and only this way, can we justify a morality that is absolute and transcendent
An eternal transcendent agent has transcendent goals, and transcendent goals create transcendent oughts
This is said to âgroundâ morality. Morality is grounded when it is justified, an ought realized as an is
This is said to âgroundâ morality. Morality is grounded when it is justified, an ought realized as an is
How else could we ground morality?
There is the humanistic strategy: perhaps morality flows from some idealized conception of human desire.
The greatest good for the greatest number.
This falls into contradiction when we attempt to find a definition of âgoodâ
There is the humanistic strategy: perhaps morality flows from some idealized conception of human desire.
The greatest good for the greatest number.
This falls into contradiction when we attempt to find a definition of âgoodâ
How to rank human desires? By means of some other desire? What about people with contradictory desires? Does the ardor of a desire modulate its priority? Any attempt to square this circle is the shell game, above.
It starts with an a priori of goodness
It starts with an a priori of goodness
And yet it will not to do believe that such things as rape and betrayal are only evil in a relative, limited way, no?
Will your conscience allow this? When someone takes sexual advantage of a child, it is only CONTINGENTLY bad?
Yet this is the bullet all godless people must bite
Will your conscience allow this? When someone takes sexual advantage of a child, it is only CONTINGENTLY bad?
Yet this is the bullet all godless people must bite
In secular morality shell games, impersonal ideas are dressed up in the clothes of a transcendent god, which makes sense because progressivism is a secular Christian sex cult. https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1029366178622332928
But there is another way, a third place to look for the grounding of morality. This way is the Nietzschean way, it is unique among all moral arguments because it JUSTIFIES ITSELF, because Nietzsche, upon climbing the mountain and finding no god there, looks within
And what does he see? He sees only his own will, and he realizes that the grounding of morality is neither a theological nor a categorical imperative, and he sees that in a godless world, there can be no Thou Shalt, there can only be I WILL
All this is to say morality is grounded in the will of the powerful, for the powerful man actualizes his will. His judgement and his good taste become for him the arbiters of all being. And if two men should disagree? Then it is strength which will prevail
And if a powerful man wills evil? Does it become good? In his own mind, yes; but there is no need for us to submit to his evil. The other day @simpolism asked, "if there is no god, then who decides what is evil?" And @eli_schiff said "you should". This answer was not flippant
You can fit a God into the Nietzschean grounding of morality if you like; as the most powerful being, morality flows from his power. I don't care if you believe in God, though I will note that all rational arguments for god, like rational arguments for morality, are a shell game
Nietzsche's self-justifying morality is modeled on Christian faith, which also justifies itself. If you need a rational argument for your faith, then your faith isn't real. As with morality, faith in God flows ultimately from the power of your will; that is the only justification
This is what Nietzsche means by "master" and "slave" morality. The master is a moral force unto himself; the slave is subject to the morality of an other. From these two circumstances flow nearly all moral conceits; and because most men are weak, slave morality abounds
In the master's morality, it is bad to be weak, bad to be a slave. The master, beholden to himself, finds satisfaction in the exercise of his will. For him, pity multiplies misery and conserves all that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of decadence
In the slave's morality, it is bad to seek power, it is bad to be strong, bad to be a master. The slave, beholden and dependent on others, sees pity as the highest virtue;
the fear of pain, even of the infinitely small in pain, â cannot end otherwise than in a religion of love...
the fear of pain, even of the infinitely small in pain, â cannot end otherwise than in a religion of love...
Metaphysicians have eliminated the attributes of virile virtues, such as strength, bravery, and pride, from the concept of God. As a result, it deteriorated into an insubstantial ideal, pure spirit, Absolute, or thing in itself.
You can see this clearly in the god-lust of leftist singularitarians, who, upon seeing the godless world, dreamt of building a mechanical god to rule over them
