Maybe not, but
logical head on their shoulders. However this kind of person I will never attract because I am cynical and a bit of a

Morality is a social institution, I'd suggest.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:41, archived)

the issue is institutionalisation kind of destroys individualism, but creates order for progression to be made
Anarchism just causes destruction.
( GrandmaOfShoes, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:47, archived)

Morality is ethics applied on a personal level.
The social institution isn't morality per se, but most people defer their own ethical choices to it because they can't or prefer not to think for themselves.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:47, archived)

Thinking for yourself
is only the logical working-out and prioritising of certain moral axioms, and those axioms are generally dependent on the society you're raised in, with a few that seem to be built-in to most humans.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:55, archived)

I don't think you work axioms out so much as you declare them,
and that the axioms define the thing you're talking about. The problem at large is that the term "morality" is not well-defined, if there is no absolute agreement on what constitutes its axioms. I think this is largely a result of a refusal to acknowledge that it ought to have axioms at all, such that most people have a pretty fuzzy concept of it as a whole, usually only relying on personal conscience and what would get them into trouble.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:00, archived)

Sorry, that's what I meant to say -
a working-out of the consequences.

Absolute agreement would require absolute moral facts, I think this is where it falls down.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:04, archived)

Absolute agreement on every little detail probably will never come about,
but at the moment, there isn't even agreement on what morality fundamentally means. People refuse to define it. By what set of universal principles can an act be judged by?
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:08, archived)

I don't think it's necessarily a refusal
as an inability to derive a "should" from an "is". I personally think any universal morality will only come about due to the suppression of other moralities, not due to some inherent logical truth.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:21, archived)

I think that's why I consider it a "refusal" as such,
because there's a fear that by defining morality in an unambiguous way would oppress some group of people or other, and be akin to tyranny.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:24, archived)

Ah, I see
I'm not afraid to state my beliefs and fight for them, even though I know that they have no universal grounding. Neither do any others which are being fought for, and if I didn't hold any "shoulds" without supreme objective guidance, I'd have no morality whatsoever.

I justify this pragmatically by saying that my "shoulds" try not to impose themselves beyond that of avoiding harm to others, and don't require belief in the Unknowable Infinite or deities. Although they do require assent to propositions that suffering and stress are less desirable than pleasure and flourishing, say.

What's the alternative?
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:33, archived)

"should" is only relative to goals.
If I want to achieve X, I "should" do Y.

But what "should" I want to achieve?

If there is a purpose to the Universe, it would provide the answer to that. I should want to achieve what the Universe is for. And what I think it is for is understanding, because that's exactly what it's been leading up to this last 13.8 billion years.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:39, archived)

But a) there's no evidence for the "if"
and b) there's no evidence for the last bit. Even if there's a purpose, we could be oblivious of or unreachable to any evidence. Plus there's the difficulty of defining what "understanding" is.

On balance, the hypothesis that teleology is an artifact of having brains that are fine-tuned for social interaction strikes me as the more likely, so far. But I remain open to other hypotheses, pending evidence.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:57, archived)

Bare with me,
I'm on the forefront of my own understanding here.
a) any reasons for the "if" must transcend evidence as such,
b) if there is a purpose, something in the Universe has to come aware of it at some point, otherwise it would go permanently unfulfilled, which would be EPIC FAIL.

My reasoning for this is that understanding, or attempting to, seems to be the primary activity of the rational mind, whether the brain as a whole is tuned for social interaction or not. Indeed, the most logical people tend to be quite poor at the social side of things. Not that I don't think the social side is important. Of course, we're also fine-tuned to exist in the physical world as well.

I'm basically looking at what the Universe has done so far and assumed it's leading up to something. What it's produced so far, unless our entire planet is some kind of massive red herring, is surely indicative of what it was set up to do. "Form and function," as my school biology teacher used to say.

I can't conceive of any meaningful kind of morality without some purpose to the Universe, so it's certainly of practical value to me that there be one.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 16:07, archived)

Hmm
a) if there is a purpose, wouldn't it be advantageous (and really very little effort) for that purpose to be clearly indicated to rational minds?
b) Not necessarily, it could be for the purpose of some extra-universal being. A car engine has a purpose and no internal knowledge of its purpose.
c) That's an immense assumption, no?
d) You don't live to a morality now?
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 16:33, archived)