Converted is me

[ninja_prophet]

I've been a consequentialist (of sorts) for quite some time now - I think that any moral terms must be ascribed after the fact, in light of the consequences brought about. Expectations for such consequences can be used to predict things, and such predictions as made by individuals (informally known as "intentions") can be used to assess people in

Comments

[jose_chica13]

I need to listen to you more. I tried to read all of this, but got confused. Let me try to summarize what I got out of it.
1) We make up our own codes of morals, much as language is made up.
2) That's not necessarily a bad thing.
3) Make your own choices and deal with the outcomes?
I think. Maybe.
Look, you know you've gotta dumb it down for me, but at least I'm trying!
luv amy

[ninja_prophet]

Wow, that's actually pretty apt. There's more to it than that, but I would agree with everything you said. 1 is spot-on, 2 has the general idea, and 3 is close enough. Look, it's tweaking time! 1. We make up our own codes of morals, much as language is made-up (just as you said).
2. Morality still has plenty of use (it's a shift in emphasis, but important enough that I think it bears mentioning).
3. Make your own choices (with some foresight and planning) and deal with the outcomes (with patience and an attitude of learning).
3.5. (This is hard, but it will make your life better.)
4. I think the descriptivity/prescriptivity thing ought to figure in somehow, as well. If you talk a good game about the "is" of morality, you're going to lose the "oomph" for a lot of people; if you try to keep the "oomph" in morality, you'll disagree over the "is" with a lot of people*.
5. Even though everyone's going to come up with their own code, we should also have a code that everyone can agree on, for things like public policy and whatnot,

[humanethic]

I'd suggest you read up on evolutionary psychology and environmental psychology. The basis for why people believe the things they, how they come to those conclusions, and whether they change their minds is a very well understood process. There's about a 100 years of research backing it up. I'd argue that any moral theory that failed to take in the biological contours/limitations of any moral systems fails by definition (this is under the assumption that you are trying to develop moral system you can actually follow, unlike Christianity etc

[ninja_prophet]

Wow, thanks for the link. I'm poring over the site, it's interesting stuff.