Timeline for Why be moral and moral anti realism
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3 at 0:07 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | I use the phrase "One Among Many" - perhaps it will work for you too. | |
| Jun 2 at 22:22 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 2 at 19:02 | comment | added | user71399 | i get that, just can't relate to it @ScottRowe | |
| Jun 2 at 18:58 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @gs without having thought too much about it, what I will is something to do with me, I'm deciding. But 'should' sounds more like what someone else decided. How do they get to decide for me? Unless should and will are both up to me, and then there is no distinction. For me, 'should' is more like: everyone will benefit from some choice. So I should want to benefit everyone including myself, otherwise I'm stupid or irrational. | |
| Jun 2 at 18:47 | comment | added | user71399 | @gs i don't mean as a phrase. i just rarely seem to want to behave in an immoral way, what i think is immoral. i could be wrong | |
| Jun 2 at 18:34 | answer | added | Ted Wrigley | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 2 at 18:01 | comment | added | g s | Why should "do what thou wilt because thou wilt" be any more reasonable than "do what thou shouldst because thou shouldst"? Seems to me that what should be is to do what thou shouldst, in fact, even if what will be is that thou doest what thou wilt. | |
| Jun 2 at 17:21 | comment | added | user71399 | it's not a maxim i can easily relate to @ScottRowe | |
| Jun 2 at 17:18 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | You should abide by morals just as you would everything else that has an effect on your life. "Do what thou wilt" is sort of a blessing and a curse. | |
| Jun 2 at 16:24 | answer | added | causative♦ | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 2 at 15:21 | comment | added | user71399 | i should have included a 'e.g.' @edelex my apologies | |
| Jun 2 at 15:19 | history | edited | user71399 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jun 2 at 15:12 | comment | added | user71399 | my question is whether, if there is no reason to abide by it, then is morality subjective. i agree that the inverse holds @edelex | |
| Jun 2 at 15:09 | comment | added | user71399 | i'm not sure i'm misusing the term, which i used to refer to mind dependence as opposed to objectivism. as your second comment, that's what i said @edelex | |
| Jun 2 at 14:39 | comment | added | edelex | First, you're misusing the term subjectivism. That refers to the theory that moral claims are truth-apt descriptions of attitudes, like 'I don't like murder' rather than expressions, which is what 'boo to stealing' is. What you're describing is more a form of expressivism/noncognitivism. Secondly, I don't understand why that relation is problematic? If moral claims are expressions of noncognitive attitudes, it would make a lot of sense for there to be no rationality involved in abiding by them. | |
| Jun 2 at 14:22 | comment | added | user71399 | i think the question makes sense. any helpful criticism is welcome | |
| Jun 2 at 14:22 | history | asked | user71399 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |