EatingPoetry wrote:
I don't think this makes sense. If everyone behaved in exactly the same manner, all we would observe is a single type of behavior, and then, perhaps, be unable to imagine any other way of doing things. Perhaps.
Well, possibly we couldn't imagine other things, but that has little to do with my statement. That one action is still how the world works.
Quote:
But our behavior is varied and we could decide if one type is better than another, for whatever reason, based on that alone.
No, we cannot do that. I explicitly stated that the two are different forms of knowledge. Variance does not give us value ranking, individuals provide that.
Quote:
I think our disagreement actually has to do with the nature of morality, however. I side with Shakespeare: Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so. I don't believe we are so stupid that we cannot imagine all the options without divine guidance.
I know it does have to do with the nature of it. This isn't a matter of imagining options, this is a matter of valuing them. We can imagine an infinite number of worlds, some full of pain and horror, others full of joy, but neither option is inherently better or worse unless we assign value and assigning value is not something that we can do based upon knowledge. I am not sure that Shakespeare really proves anything, if anything his statement can mean that morality makes things immoral for arbitrary reasons as thinking does not mean flawless logic which is what I am asking for.
Quote:
And I believe that we are animals with a limited number of choices to make. And everything we do is natural, or it wouldn't happen. Whether an action is moral or not depends on what it does to or for you.
I did not say that anything we did was unnatural. No, whether an action is moral does not depend on what it does to or for you, you have not proved that and many philosophies disagree with that statement. If you disagree with my assessment then prove morality in a manner where all premises must be accepted.