Yes: valuing something implies that I value it, and believing something doesn’t imply that it’s true. Agreed.
I assume you’re trying to imply that there exists some X that bears the same kind of relationship to valuing that truth has to belief, and that I’m making an analogous error by ignoring X and just talking about value as if I ignored truth and just talked about belief.
Then again, maybe not. You seem fond of making these sorts of gnomic statements and leaving it to others to unpack your meaning. I’m not really sure why.
Anyway, if that is your point and you feel like talking about what you think the X I’m illegitimately ignoring is, or if your point is something else and you feel like actually articulating it, I’m listening.
Well, the common name for this X is something being “moral” or “right” but it appears a lot of people in this thread like to use those words in non-standard ways.
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree… I’m disregarding the commonly-referenced “morality” or “rightness” of acts that somehow exists independent of the values that various value-having systems have.
If it turns out that such a thing is important, then I’m importantly mistaken.
Do you believe such a thing is important? If so, why?
I assume you’re trying to imply that there exists some X that bears the same kind of relationship to valuing that truth has to belief, and that I’m making an analogous error by ignoring X and just talking about value as if I ignored truth and just talked about belief.
I think that is a distinct possibility.
Do you believe such a thing is important?
What’s more important? What would serve as a good excuse for doing immoral things, or not knowing right from wrong?
Firstly, you are assuming something that many would disagree with: that an act with no consequences can be immoral, rather than being automatically morally neutral.
Secondly: even if true, that is a special case.
The importance of morality flows from its obligatoriness.
Sure. You asked a very open-ended question, I made some assumptions about what you meant. If you’d prefer to clarify your own meaning instead, I’d be delighted, but that doesn’t appear to be your style.
The intended answer to “what is more important than morality”, AKA “what is a good excuse for behaving immorally” was “nothing” (for all that you came up with … nothing much). The question was intended to show that not only is morality important, it is ultimately so.
Yes: valuing something implies that I value it, and believing something doesn’t imply that it’s true. Agreed.
I assume you’re trying to imply that there exists some X that bears the same kind of relationship to valuing that truth has to belief, and that I’m making an analogous error by ignoring X and just talking about value as if I ignored truth and just talked about belief.
Then again, maybe not. You seem fond of making these sorts of gnomic statements and leaving it to others to unpack your meaning. I’m not really sure why.
Anyway, if that is your point and you feel like talking about what you think the X I’m illegitimately ignoring is, or if your point is something else and you feel like actually articulating it, I’m listening.
Well, the common name for this X is something being “moral” or “right” but it appears a lot of people in this thread like to use those words in non-standard ways.
If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree… I’m disregarding the commonly-referenced “morality” or “rightness” of acts that somehow exists independent of the values that various value-having systems have.
If it turns out that such a thing is important, then I’m importantly mistaken.
Do you believe such a thing is important?
If so, why?
I think that is a distinct possibility.
What’s more important? What would serve as a good excuse for doing immoral things, or not knowing right from wrong?
The lack of anything depending on whether an act was immoral; the lack of any consequences to not knowing right from wrong.
Firstly, you are assuming something that many would disagree with: that an act with no consequences can be immoral, rather than being automatically morally neutral.
Secondly: even if true, that is a special case.
The importance of morality flows from its obligatoriness.
Sure. You asked a very open-ended question, I made some assumptions about what you meant. If you’d prefer to clarify your own meaning instead, I’d be delighted, but that doesn’t appear to be your style.
The intended answer to “what is more important than morality”, AKA “what is a good excuse for behaving immorally” was “nothing” (for all that you came up with … nothing much). The question was intended to show that not only is morality important, it is ultimately so.
Thanks for clarifying.