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/
39
9
139
Conversation
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
Replying to
If you're interested in where this idea comes up in academic philosophy: Immanual Kant pretty much drew up the same distinction you are drawing here, with different conclusions. What you call if-thens, he called "hypothetical imperatives" (if you want X, you should do Y)
1
Where you and he differ is that he thought there were *also* "categorical imperatives" of the form "you should do Y".
I don't know his work super-well, but my understanding is a lot of it is him trying to answer the question you raise: How to get from "if-then" to "should".
1