what are they?
The reason you have a hard time conceiving of moral imperatives is because you are afraid of falling on the other side and being declared hard stop immoral.
Which is fine but it has no bearing on whether or not they can exist
Like, that's just me making a moral judgment. It doesn't suppose my thought is a moral feature that has a truth-value
well you could declare it to be the case but its not compelling to me unless it means something. for example, everyone is immoral therefore society will collapse and lots of people will die. that is compelling.
but alternatively if you declare everyone has original sin and therefore is immoral its meaningless to me since i dont believe in literal hell.
no, i dont think this is true. i have no trouble assuming utilitarianism and admitting i am incredibly immoral. but i have insufficient motivation to stop being immoral. and its not something i would preach to anyone or beat myself up over.
but that isn't the issue
or maybe it's precisely the issue... .?
Why does your moral system necessarily need motivation to stop being immoral
because i need motivation to stop being immoral? it is apparently the case. i could be donating my money to effective charity to reduce my utilitarian immorality. i just dont want to. does this mean i dont actually think i am immoral?
You always know when you're talking to someone who knows nothing about ethics when they keep saying the only one that makes sense to them is utilitarianism and then explain no further.
It's because utilitarianism is the only one you ever hear about without reading even the slightest amount or taking even like a general philosophy course in highschool or GPHIL 101.
I don’t want to ask how many people need to share that for it to become a fact because it isn’t helpful or effective
But you can pretty easily create discrete moral situations that are different in some way and you can assign morality as the reason why these differences exist in how you made your judgment and you could give this test to a sufficient sample size and it’d pretty easily show that indeed there are testable and consistent moral judgments being made so there has to exist some actual moral fact
but i think this line of thinking assumes that people make decisions based on their conscious morality, which broadly speaking i believe they dont. you could look to lower level impulses and sentiments which maybe you can call morality, but then its hard to talk about mine because i dont understand them very well.
what is motivation to morality?
This doesn’t answer the question
You needing your system of morality to induce someone to act morally because you want to be induced to act morally is the most selfish and intellectually poor shit I think I’ve ever read
And rather descriptive of where you lie on this spectrum
utilitarianism makes sense to me because the numbers add up. i never claimed to have any training in morality.
hbotz... why didn't you read the wiki article?
yes i am mostly selfish. and not very moral.
i dont see why its intellectually poor beyond the fact that you are accusing me of being motivated to not find moralities compelling for fear of adopting them. which okay, maybe there is such and effect. its possible.
So it is quite hard for any moral system to ever exist if it has to compel you, a person perfectly satisfied not acting morally, to act morally.
i said motivation to act moral. utilitarianism gives directives. i think it makes sense, but im still not gonna follow them.