Talk:Morality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Small deletion[edit]

Paragraph "In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge.." deleted as not relevant to morals as construct/in definition. Whilst I like the first sentence I couldn't leave it standalone. The remainder, in my opinion, is of the class "this [subjectively classed] group of people (pundits) definitely do [semi-subjectively classed] action (pose politically)", which strikes me as unnecessary/POV. mr happyhour 18:10 04 AUG 06

What does the first sentence mean?[edit]

The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity.

"Different peoples of humanity"?

Jstrayer (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's using "people" as a singular noun roughly equivalent to "culture" or "nation"; read it as "different cultures of humanity". I'd be OK with changing it to that if that makes more sense to you. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Objective morality as presupposed, and supposed by 5 experts[edit]

Morality is founded on self-interest, which includes the pleasure we find in sensing the pleasure in others. -David Hume

While Russell wrote a great deal on ethical subject matters, he did not believe that the subject belonged to philosophy or that when he wrote on ethics that he did so in his capacity as a philosopher. In his earlier years, Russell was greatly influenced by G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica. Along with Moore, he then believed that moral facts were objective, but known only through intuition; that they were simple properties of objects, not equivalent (e.g., pleasure is good) to the natural objects to which they are often ascribed (see Naturalistic fallacy); and that these simple, undefinable moral properties cannot be analyzed using the non-moral properties with which they are associated. In time, however, he came to agree with his philosophical hero, David Hume, who believed that ethical terms dealt with subjective values that cannot be verified in the same way as matters of fact.

Coupled with Russell's other doctrines, this influenced the logical positivists, who formulated the theory of emotivism or non-cognitivism, which states that ethical propositions (along with those of metaphysics) were essentially meaningless and nonsensical or, at best, little more than expressions of attitudes and preferences. Notwithstanding his influence on them, Russell himself did not construe ethical propositions as narrowly as the positivists, for he believed that ethical considerations are not only meaningful, but that they are a vital subject matter for civil discourse. Indeed, though Russell was often characterised as the patron saint of rationality, he agreed with Hume, who said that reason ought to be subordinate to ethical considerations

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them,” wrote Immanuel Kant, “the starry heavens above and the moral law within.”

One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.” -Steven Pinker

" is the worst possible misery for everyone a bad thing? Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing—whatever these states amount to for each particular being in the end—are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality." -Sam Harris

Submitted by Johnathan Clinger — Preceding johnathan clinger comment added by 151.151.109.17 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there supposed to be some suggestion or objection regarding this article's content in there? If not, please note that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic of morality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What about emotion?[edit]

There is nothing in this article on emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.42.18 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)