Posted: Oct 03, 2017 6:51 pm
by romansh
archibald wrote:
In fact in might go further and say that you could also leave both morals and ethics in using the same, essentially pragmatic and empirical approach, and end up saying that we do need all three (morals, ethics and justice), just not, perhaps, in the way that they are traditionally conceived of.

And just to try to throw an amicable spanner in what I'm guessing part of your response might be (about your aspiring to amoralism, with which I have no issue and which I broadly admire)......can I ask the question, is deciding to be morally neutral or if you like taking a tolerant and accepting stance on something (eg homosexuality, when one is not a homosexual oneself) not in itself still a moral decision? :mrgreen:

To me this thread is closely linked with the subject of free will ... sorry Cito

I have desires, wants ... wills if you like. These as far as I can tell are products of prior causes. No sensible person would argue against this, I think. Do I control these desires? I feel I do, but I don't think so. To keep vaguely on topic I could say the same of morals. Why would I take up an inaccurate model (that I can't help but find inaccurate) in navigating my immediate bit of the universe? The only argument that makes sense to me would be evolution has provided me a "short cut" to making choices regarding my behaviours and perhaps those of others? Is this short cut infallible? No. Is the identifying behaviour that will likely lead to successful implementation of my desires infallible? No. For some reason that escapes me I have elected the latter route.

I don't see this as a neutral moral stance. It is also related to the colour thread. Morality like colour exist as concepts as do the luminiferous ether, unicorns etc. I don't have to believe in them. But I can use them.

Not sure I answered your question?