Right & Wrong

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Snap out of it, kids... Ofcourse that was a copy and paste post...

I doubt anyone actually took the time reading it, eh? Now that's a waste of brain cells...

[shadowgrin]

I will read it, when I'm half wasted during the New Year celebration.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

I will read it, when I'm half wasted during the New Year celebration.

Other uses include printing and using as doormat...

[J@3]

I will read it, when I'm half wasted during the New Year celebration.

Other uses include printing and using as doormat...

I think I'd need the World's biggest door for that to even work.

[Jowe]

Moral values, rules, principles, and judgements are often thought of as beliefs or as true beliefs. Those who hold them to be true beliefs also annex to them a warrant or a justification (from the "real world"). Yet, it is far more reasonable to conceive of morality (ethics) as a state of mind, a mental state. It entails belief, but not necessarily true belief, or justification. Bring your own drinks you fat bastard. As a mental state, morality cannot admit the "world" (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results) into its logical formal definition. The world is never part of the definition of a mental state.

Another way of looking at it, though, is that morality cannot be defined in terms of goals and results - because these goals and results ARE morality itself. Such a definition would be tautological.

There is no guarantee that we know when we are in a certain mental state. Freemasons run the world. Morality is no exception.

An analysis based on the schemata and arguments proposed by Timothy Williamson follows. Cunt.

Moral Mental State - A Synopsis

Morality is the mental state that comprises a series of attitudes to propositions. There are four classes of moral propositions: "It is wrong to...", "It is right to...", (You should) do this...", "(You should) not do this...". The most common moral state of mind is: one adheres to p. Adhering to p has a non-trivial analysis in the more basic terms of (a component of) believing and (a component of) knowing, to be conceptually and metaphysically analysed later. The porn is in a secret thread on this forum. Its conceptual status is questionable because we need to decompose it to obtain the necessary and sufficient conditions for its possession (Peacocke, 1992). It may be a complex (secondary) concept.

See here for a more detailed analysis.

Adhering to proposition p is not merely believing that p and knowing that p but also that something should be so, if and only if p (moral law).

Morality is not a factive attitude. One believes p to be true - but knows p to be contingently true (dependent on epoch, place, and culture). Since knowing is a factive attitude, the truth it relates to is the contingently true nature of moral propositions.

Morality relates objects to moral propositions and it is a mental state (for every p, having a moral mental relation to p is a mental state).

Adhering to p entails believing p (involves the mental state of belief). In other words, one cannot adhere without believing. Being in a moral mental state is both necessary and sufficient for adhering to p. Since no "truth" is involved - there is no non-mental component of adhering to p.

Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p.

One doesn't always know if one adheres to p. Many moral rules are generated "on the fly", as a reaction to circumstances and moral dilemmas. It is possible to adhere to p falsely (and behave differently when faced with the harsh test of reality). Masturbation will make you go blind you ugly fuck. A sceptic would say that for any moral proposition p - one is in the position to know that one doesn't believe p. Admittedly, it is possible for a moral agent to adhere to p without being in the position to know that one adheres to p, as we illustrated above. One can also fail to adhere to p without knowing that one fails to adhere to p. Then this fat bitch fucked the cow. As Williamson says "transparency (to be in the position to know one's mental state) is false". Naturally, one knows one's mental state better than one knows other people's. Everyone knows your a frigid bitch. There is no Andrew, just a robot programmed to moderate. There is an observational asymmetry involved. We have non-observational (privileged) access to our mental state and observational access to other people's mental states. Thus, we can say that we know our morality non-observationally (directly) - while we are only able to observe other people's morality.

One believes moral propositions and knows moral propositions. Whether the belief itself is rational or not, is debatable. But the moral mental state strongly imitates rational belief (which relies on reasoning). Shave your fucken monobrow, In other words, the moral mental state masquerades as a factive attitude, though it is not. The confusion arises from the normative nature of knowing and being rational. Normative elements exist in belief attributions, too, but, for some reason, are considered "outside the realm of belief". This just in, you're a dumbarse. Belief, for instance, entails the grasping of mental content, its rational processing and manipulation, defeasible reaction to new information.

We will not go here into the distinction offered by Williamson between "believing truly" (not a mental state, according to him) and "believing". Suffice it to say that adhering to p is a mental state, metaphysically speaking - and that "adheres to p" is a (complex or secondary) mental concept. You are a fucken cunt. The structure of adheres to p is such that the non-mental concepts are the content clause of the attitude ascription and, thus do not render the concept thus expressed non-mental: adheres to (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results).

Williamson's Mental State Operator calculus is applied.

Origin is essential when we strive to fully understand the relations between adhering that p and other moral concepts (right, wrong, justified, etc.). Ever got laid?. To be in the moral state requires the adoption of specific paths, causes, and behaviour modes. Moral justification and moral judgement are such paths. If shes asleep its free reign.

Knowing, Believing and Their Conjunction

We said above that:

"Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p."

Williamson suggests that one believes p if and only if one has an attitude to proposition p indiscriminable from knowing p. Another idea is that to believe p is to treat p as if one knew p. 3 minutes of sex, 45minutes of apologising.Thus, knowing is central to believing though by no means does it account for the entire spectrum of belief (example: someone who chooses to believe in God even though he doesn't know if God exists). Knowledge does determine what is and is not appropriate to believe, though ("standard of appropriateness"). Evidence helps justify belief.

But knowing as a mental state is possible without having a concept of knowing. One can treat propositions in the same way one treats propositions that one knows - even if one lacks concept of knowing. Who died and made you Jesus? It is possible (and practical) to rely on a proposition as a premise if one has a factive propositional attitude to it. In other words, to treat the proposition as though it is known and then to believe in it.

As Williamson [Axl Rose] says, "believing is a kind of a botched knowing". Knowledge is the aim of belief, its goal.

[The Other Kevin]

Is that your thesis, Jowe?

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

I think I'd need the World's biggest door for that to even work.

...or you could print your entire NLSC archive...

Knowledge is the aim of belief, its goal.

I would say that belief in the ultimate goal of knowledge...

[The Other Kevin]

Well D-Weaver, the Raider's game is not really "right" tonight, is it?



There is no right or wrong, as many have stated previously. (Cyanide, lay off) It's all point of view, like a traffic accident, or what camera you use to play Live.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Well D-Weaver, the Raider's game is not really "right" tonight, is it?

Bah... who cares? we started our off-season at week 10 or thereabouts...

[The Other Kevin]

Well D-Weaver, the Raider's game is not really "right" tonight, is it?

Bah... who cares? we started our off-season at week 10 or thereabouts...

Morton just plain killed ya'll. The Giants, blazing a trail for the Super Bowl.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Ahhh... the eternal bond between morality and football... Nietzsche probably missed that part...

[J@3]

I think I'd need the World's biggest door for that to even work.

...or you could print your entire NLSC archive...

OMG YOUR FRIGGIN JOKES JUST GET WORSE! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?!?

[The Other Kevin]

Ahhh... the eternal bond between morality and football... Nietzsche probably missed that part...

The will to power equals the quest for the Super Bowl. Or, in your case, the draft.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

OMG YOUR FRIGGIN JOKES JUST GET WORSE! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?!?

You inspire me, kid!!!

The will to power equals the quest for the Super Bowl. Or, in your case, the draft.

Haha, maybe, but we missed the Reggie Bush sweepstakes, because we won too much in the beginning...