Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1356391979370897409
Personal pronoun 'I' replaces 'i'.
Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

I used to be fairly convinced that morality existed - because of the numerous different ethical systems available, I was sure that even if I did not know which system was right, that morality, in some, abstract, superfluous sense, existed. I have become dispossessed of this because I have realised that morality is nothing more than a consolidation of "ought" statements. So we ought not to steal, we ought not to kill, etc. However, I realised that it is close to impossible to justify an ought statement. I'll try and prove it by playing a little game.

So let's start from a fairly non-controversial moral rule: we ought not to steal. I could ask "why?" and you would say "because the property isn't yours." I could ask "why should iI not take things that aren't mine?" and you could say (if you were a Kantian) "that society could not function unless we agreed not to steal." I could then ask "why should iI act on the basis of allowing society to function?" and so on and so forth. I think you probably get the idea.

If someone could help me figure out why this stuff is rubbish, I would be truly grateful - I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather live in a world where I believed that morality existed.

I used to be fairly convinced that morality existed - because of the numerous different ethical systems available, I was sure that even if I did not know which system was right, that morality, in some, abstract, superfluous sense, existed. I have become dispossessed of this because I have realised that morality is nothing more than a consolidation of "ought" statements. So we ought not to steal, we ought not to kill, etc. However, I realised that it is close to impossible to justify an ought statement. I'll try and prove it by playing a little game.

So let's start from a fairly non-controversial moral rule: we ought not to steal. I could ask "why?" and you would say "because the property isn't yours." I could ask "why should i not take things that aren't mine?" and you could say (if you were a Kantian) "that society could not function unless we agreed not to steal." I could then ask "why should i act on the basis of allowing society to function?" and so on and so forth. I think you probably get the idea.

If someone could help me figure out why this stuff is rubbish, I would be truly grateful - I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather live in a world where I believed that morality existed.

I used to be fairly convinced that morality existed - because of the numerous different ethical systems available, I was sure that even if I did not know which system was right, that morality, in some, abstract, superfluous sense, existed. I have become dispossessed of this because I have realised that morality is nothing more than a consolidation of "ought" statements. So we ought not to steal, we ought not to kill, etc. However, I realised that it is close to impossible to justify an ought statement. I'll try and prove it by playing a little game.

So let's start from a fairly non-controversial moral rule: we ought not to steal. I could ask "why?" and you would say "because the property isn't yours." I could ask "why should I not take things that aren't mine?" and you could say (if you were a Kantian) "that society could not function unless we agreed not to steal." I could then ask "why should I act on the basis of allowing society to function?" and so on and so forth. I think you probably get the idea.

If someone could help me figure out why this stuff is rubbish, I would be truly grateful - I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather live in a world where I believed that morality existed.

Bumped by Community user
Source Link

Is it possible for morality to exist?

I used to be fairly convinced that morality existed - because of the numerous different ethical systems available, I was sure that even if I did not know which system was right, that morality, in some, abstract, superfluous sense, existed. I have become dispossessed of this because I have realised that morality is nothing more than a consolidation of "ought" statements. So we ought not to steal, we ought not to kill, etc. However, I realised that it is close to impossible to justify an ought statement. I'll try and prove it by playing a little game.

So let's start from a fairly non-controversial moral rule: we ought not to steal. I could ask "why?" and you would say "because the property isn't yours." I could ask "why should i not take things that aren't mine?" and you could say (if you were a Kantian) "that society could not function unless we agreed not to steal." I could then ask "why should i act on the basis of allowing society to function?" and so on and so forth. I think you probably get the idea.

If someone could help me figure out why this stuff is rubbish, I would be truly grateful - I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather live in a world where I believed that morality existed.