Morality doesn't make sense.

[FredVegrox]

Science in the strict sense involves following procedures from premises, testing, and making conclusions. Logic is separate (I have been told) and can be used philosophically. But everything should be subject to being questioned, most especially those things we were told so that we believe those. I have questioned ways of doing things, and concluded differently from others around me, and now do a number of things different from others, that none are just like me. It came to me being vegan, for one of those things. And I do other things, even such that others would not know was even possible, I go far beyond their expectations. There are things believed that have been accepted and never questioned by others again, though they must have heard those things many times to not consider questioning them. I am really most unique, and did not fear learning things that could mean making significant changes even when growing older. I still do things I see are the moral choices to make, some of what I do others might doubt is moral, but they would not have accurately true basis to say such is not moral, just mistaken assumptions.

[brimstoneSalad]

Science in the strict sense involves following procedures from premises, testing, and making conclusions. Logic is separate (I have been told) and can be used philosophically.

Teo has almost certainly misunderstood me. His reasoning in particular can not be trusted, because there's something inherently wrong with the way he thinks and jumps to conclusions. He wants for some reason to be novel for novelty's sake, which is a big risk.

If he learned formal logic, then he could chart out reasoning more mathematically on paper and reach sound conclusions based on limited premises.
This is probably what he needs to do.

Science and logic can be trusted if done correctly, and understood correctly. Science provides provisional premises, and logic provides certain conclusions based on those premises when valid reasoning is used.
Teo specifically just has a habit of understanding things in an unusual way, getting his premises very wrong and I think also making unusual leaps in informal reasoning.

Some people can have more or less trust in their own informal reasoning and intuitive ways of understanding things, but that will be informed by track record. I think you seem to have a more intuitive grasp on things Fred, and you're right we shouldn't trust those things 100% but you often demonstrate yourself to have an interesting take that can be supported well by reason, and I think you have a heathy level of self reflection and uncertainty.

[FredVegrox]

Thank you for that online assessment, of some small value while we have not personally met. I agree, with the observation still that I come to conclusions that others who agree with me to something else will not. I mean with this that I agree with others to some one thing and they would not agree to other conclusions I have come to, and a few rarer times I can find someone who is in agreement to two of those things. Well, actually they are each a set of things that a conclusion will include. But there are half a dozen such sets from mostly separate conclusions that I would find no one agreeing to all of them, I have yet to find one agreeing to three of the same conclusions, that leave me quite unique. Some would think that means I am wrong about things. I am not infallible, but all of those are well reasoned out and I could go at length communicating about any of those things in which I am different from most. Each of these things is as distinct from the ways of others as being vegan is, which is among those things in which I choose differently.

[brimstoneSalad]

@FredVegrox Informal reasoning has its limitations and will not necessarily compel agreement. You can try learning about and shifting more to formal logic in those cases, although there's a chance that the person will just reject logical deduction or say something like "logic isn't always right". At least it's a good way to check your own reasoning, if you take the time to do it. Converting a more complex informal argument can be a substantial endeavor, though, because you have to reduce it to basic syllogisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_v ... ment_forms

[FredVegrox]

Yes, that helps, though much of it was not unfamiliar to me.

[BrianBlackwell]

Like I said without going into an infinite regress, at the end of the day how can you grounds morality in anything other than a non-cognitive state like desire?

Maybe we can think of it like this:

Morality supposes an "ought," so considering the nature of oughts is a likely first step. Oughts exist relative to some end. That end may be rather arbitrary, like "obey God's commands," or practical, such as "build a functional boat." In either case we are referencing best practices, given a particular goal. IF you wish to build a functional boat, THEN you ought to apply principles relevant to buoyancy in its construction. I can see no other rational conception of "ought."

Morality concerns oughts of a particular kind, so to what goal does morality refer, and is that goal objectively-derived? (Bear with me on some of this terminology, as I try to pinpoint what we're after.) We perceive a lifeward tendency in living creatures; an innate desire for (or tendency toward) survival, thriving, authentic expression, etc. We also note that sentient beings have individualized experiences, and are naturally granted exclusive control over their own bodies. These are objectively true features.

As intelligent beings, it behooves us to operate on truth, rather than falsehood, as this is the innate function of intelligence, and fosters success in achieving goals. In perceiving the aforementioned truths about other beings, as well as ourselves, we ought to behave with due consideration and acknowledgement of these truths. This becomes the objectively derived, cognitive basis for our morality.

[FredVegrox]

Reasoning logically leads to things like choices, some of these are involving morality. This does not mean there is no God, but there are choices we make for what sense we all have for what is right and what is wrong. The golden rule is sensible in this, to not have things happen to others that we would not have happen to ourselves. With God it would make sense we would have that told to us. With karma, in this life or anything after that such as reincarnation it would be sensible to choose according to the golden rule. Limiting this will be arbitrary, without logic to that, it has more sense to not limit it, and veganism is the logical step from that. In this and in other things I might expect more choices that I make to be seen among others.

[FredVegrox]

I do not believe there is good argument against believing in God. Demanding undeniable evidence that God is there is not that. It is equally not possible to prove God is not there. There is no proof that will convince others, either way. One has evidences for one's self and will go by faith with that, for either way.

The golden rule has good support from many sources on all sides. The limitation to its application is always, always, arbitrary. There is no convincing argument for saying it should be limited.

[FredVegrox]

This does apply to choosing veganism. I see that, it seems that others do, or would. But then when I get as far as mentioning veganism in this reasoning, I often get huge and even hostile argument that the golden rule which should not be limited, as I just had agreement to, can't apply to any but other fellow humans, and what applies to humans should never apply to [other] animals. Brackets indicated that I add "other" to that response. Those responding never want to admit humans are animals. But what there is to except humans from animals is arbitrary itself, there are greater differences between animals at their extremes than what humans have for their distinctions. But if we can choose that sets us apart, how are we superior when we do not choose to avoid harm to other beings? I would say that is not being shown that way.

God existing means with being Creator of all the universe that God values life, from God's own creation. There would not be exception one way or other to life being valued. It is a huge universe and humans are a very very tiny part of it.

[FredVegrox]

Logic does apply to philosophy and I have an interest in philosophy. It does not exclude God. There is philosophical discussion for God, and one can have some understanding of God without any religion. That there is understanding of God does not exclude veganism either, while there are such people of some religion that will hold that God would be against veganism, that can't have any logic behind that, why would God create sensitive feeling creatures that no one should exclude from having kept captive for being killed to be eaten? There is no logic thought of for that, and probably very great misunderstanding of texts they believe.