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)