Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
It makes sense if you think reason can not be the basis of morality.
|
It may "make sense," but it doesn't in any way explain
why reason cannot be the basis of morality, something you have said over and over but have not been able to explain (perhaps because you see moral reasoning as futile?).
Quote:
What is wrong with this statement:
If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.
The point being that either you agree on a code (like the ten commandments) or you agree on selfishness. Absense that you can have no foundation for morality. You can't reason out morality. Like I said before - why is killing innocent wrong. Absense a selfish argument (ie - if we let innocent people get killed then I am next) you can not come up with a logical explanation of why killing is wrong. You must just agree that it is.
|
The problem you have with language -- what do words mean, and how do we communicate? -- is one that has occupied many smart people for a long time. I have no simple answer, but it's not a problem that worries me. And in the context of our conversation, it has nothing to do with the alternative bases for morality, for one can ask the same question about religion -- how do we understand God's wishes?
So the leap you make from your first paragraph here to your second is a huge one. I disagree that you either "agree on a code" or "agree on selfishness." I'm not even sure what it means. Did you look at that link I posted on partially theorized agreements? In the law, people often agree on specific (moral) outcomes even when they can't agree on broader principles. The converse is often true as well.
And I can come up with logical explanations of why (most) killing is wrong. You just see discussing it as futile, or something.
