Joseph Maynor

Have you invented morality in your communications?

Can you summarize your position and I will respond.

I'm kinda over hiding morality. This is ridiculous.

Yes. But you're assuming that is wrong, no?

I still feel like morality is being brought in thru the back door with the fox is guarding the hen-house idea. Why not openly admit moral realism?

I disagree. I think Love includes love. Just like Truth contains truth.

I don't feel that way, but then again I don't know you well.

Actually for me nature has been pretty good. I've had my issues of course.

It's interesting how you say from our perspective.

Examining every possibility could fill volumes. This is why ultimately you have to be the source when it comes to judgment. This is an interesting video I'm re-watching now:

It's always been popular with kids to resist moral realism. Why is that? This is why everyone has to try to bring morality in thu the back door in spirituality. Because the assumption is spirituality is superior to someone (usually the human is scapegoated here).

Love includes kindness. Just like Truth includes truth.

This is actually really interesting because it shows how metaphysics and ethics blur. We assume there's a brite-line distinction between metaphysics and ethics. This gets into intellect mastery. Someone wants to draw a conclusion with concepts that shade into each other.

The presence of ought statements as epistemically valid. That's moral realism.

Got it. I'll rewatch that video today. However, you seem to consider both as valuable to share as oughts, i.e., you seem feel like both ought to be integrated or embodied, and are both true/True on some level. I'll re-watch both of these videos today.

Aren't health, finances, relationships relative issues? What is the relationship of relative truths to Absolute Truth?

What made you conclude that this is The Work?

But it's also a relative too right, we associate truth with some ego taking right conduct in the world. Honoring truth from a human perspective as well.

Here's a question for you. Does Truth exist only for you?

Okay. This is just his argument. What he is saying is moral relativity is untenable. And he takes an anti-realist conclusion from it. So he assumes there is no sense at all to moral relativism, and thus no need to consider it as having anything to do with what one ought to do.

But moral relativity cannot prescribe any universal moral realist claim. This is what Bernard Williams' point is.

Actually this thesis about morality has a split in philosophy. There are those who think morality is something social. And then there are those who think morality comes from an individual. This is a major issue in Ethics, which is the fancy term for morality in philosophy. Many philosophers don't even notice this when they frame morality as a social issue. They cut off the other half of ethics -- which is what ought I do? The solution around this confusion IMO is: Morality (or ethics) is just about ought statements. This can be for an individual, for example, how ought I live my life? That's a moral (ethical) question.