I'm not really familiar with philosophy, so I don't know what term describes my view on morality. But to describe it, it's something like, all moral claims can be broken down into non-moral claims; moral language/concepts are 'shorthand' 1/
Conversation
Replying to
You can say basically the same things in non-moral frameworks as you can in moral frameworks, and this is *preferred*, because all moral frameworks are really incoherent. Morality isn't fundamentally real, it exists sort of as a "layer on top of" social reality.
8
3
71
Most questions about meta-morality or whatevs do better when u taboo all moral language and see what the questions resolve to without that. Unconditional "shoulds" make no sense to me, and if u remove that you just get a bunch of if-thens, which are more sensible and functional.
8
82
A *ton* of the fuzzy, counterintuitive, and paradoxical moral questions (including lots of utilitarian thought experiments!) only feel that way because they're pointing at the failures of the moral shorthand, gesturing to the fact of information loss as we skipped over steps.
18
1
82
Replying to
Your answer to the question “describe your morality” is “morality isn’t real”? I don’t think that’s an answer. If you see a framework as incoherent, reject it, sure. But try to replace it with something that makes sense, and in the meantime your answer can be “I don’t have one”?
3
5
Replying to
?? the whole christian framework for explaining how god and jesus are the same thing is one i reject, and i'm not replacing it with another framework to explain god and jesus, im just like 'this is all bunk'
2
25
Show replies
Replying to
could give you an -ism if you unpacked what sort of non moral claims they reduce to. that’s where most of the nuance comes in
3
Replying to
don't you think that eventually you must resort to certain moral "axioms" that depend on the person's programmed social instinct? eg. someone's empathy being more or less preferential towards one's ingroup
1
2
