«Haz el bien de tal forma que cuando alguien vaya a hablar mal de ti, tenga que mentir».
—Fátima Bosch

No title available

Origami Around

titsay

tannertan36
Peter Solarz
Game of Thrones Daily
i don't do bad sauce passes
AnasAbdin

Love Begins
cherry valley forever

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
NASA
No title available
todays bird
Not today Justin
we're not kids anymore.
noise dept.
DEAR READER

Andulka
Mike Driver
seen from Hungary

seen from United States

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Hungary
seen from United States
seen from South Korea

seen from China

seen from South Africa
seen from Azerbaijan

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia
@samplingmode
«Haz el bien de tal forma que cuando alguien vaya a hablar mal de ti, tenga que mentir».
—Fátima Bosch
Sos una trampa que ya no enreda.
"Quiero morirme de manera singular"
Budu Feat Grandbull - Bastar2
La historia siempre cambia y menos mal crecí en una casa de amantes al peligro. Porque con este sistema, nunca predicen.
Anteriormente antes de llamarme SanSt
DETRUAN - Eleese Clan Ft Brain Bonaparte, GBN, Stick de OkapsNocap
Beat elaborado por Inko Beats, Brain Bonaparte & SanSt
Tu muerte está más asegurada que tú boda, así que en vez de buscar a tu alma gemela, empieza a buscar tu alma.
The Ontology of Ethics
The ontology of ethics is one of the most foundational and contested areas of philosophy. It asks: What is the fundamental nature of moral values, duties, and virtues? Do they exist independently of human minds, or are they human constructions? If they exist, what kind of reality do they have?
In essence, the ontology of ethics investigates the mode of being of the ethical. It is the inquiry into whether "good," "right," "evil," and "obligation" name features of reality itself or are projections of human subjectivity onto a morally neutral world.
Here is a systematic exploration of the ontology of ethics, mapping the major positions and the arguments for and against each.
I. THE CORE ONTOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
The ontology of ethics can be organized around a series of fundamental questions:
Do moral properties exist?
If they exist, are they objective?
If they exist, are they natural or non-natural?
If they don't exist, what are we doing when we moralize?
II. MORAL REALISM: THE CLAIM THAT MORALITY IS REAL
Moral realism is the view that moral properties exist objectively, independently of human beliefs, feelings, or conventions. Just as scientific claims aim to describe a mind-independent physical world, moral claims aim to describe a mind-independent moral reality.
A. Naturalism: Morality as Part of the Natural World
Moral naturalism holds that moral properties are natural properties—the kind studied by the empirical sciences. "Goodness" might be identical to "pleasure" (utilitarianism) or "that which promotes human flourishing" (Aristotelian naturalism).
Utilitarian Naturalism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill effectively identified the good with pleasure and the absence of pain. These are natural, empirically observable states. "Right" actions are those that produce the best balance of pleasure over pain.
Aristotelian Naturalism: Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse argue that moral goodness is analogous to biological flourishing. Just as a good oak tree is one that realizes its natural potential (deep roots, broad canopy, abundant acorns), a good human is one that realizes human natural potential—through virtue, reason, and community.
Cornell Realism: Richard Boyd and David Brink argue that moral properties are natural properties (like "conductive to human flourishing") that can be investigated empirically, though they may not be reducible to simpler natural properties.
Strengths: Naturalism makes ethics continuous with science. It avoids mysterious, non-natural entities. It provides a method (empirical investigation) for resolving moral disputes.
Weaknesses: The "open question argument" (G.E. Moore) suggests that for any natural property proposed as identical to "good," we can intelligibly ask: "But is it good?" This seems to show that "good" is not identical to any natural property. Also, deriving "ought" from "is" remains problematic (Hume's guillotine).
B. Non-Naturalism: Morality as Sui Generis
Non-naturalism holds that moral properties are real and objective but not reducible to natural properties. They are sui generis—of their own unique kind—and known through rational intuition rather than empirical observation.
G.E. Moore's Intuitionism: In Principia Ethica, Moore argued that "good" is a simple, indefinable, non-natural property. Just as "yellow" cannot be defined to someone who hasn't seen it, "good" cannot be defined but only directly intuited.
W.D. Ross's Pluralism: Ross argued that we have immediate, self-evident intuitions of prima facie duties (fidelity, gratitude, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, self-improvement). These duties are objective but may conflict; judgment is required to determine our actual duty in concrete situations.
Rational Intuitionism (Audi, Huemer): Contemporary intuitionists argue that we have intellectual seeming or rational insight into basic moral truths, analogous to our insight into logical and mathematical truths.
Strengths: Non-naturalism preserves the objectivity of ethics while respecting the uniqueness of moral discourse. It explains why moral truths seem categorically binding, not merely hypothetical.
Weaknesses: Critics charge that non-naturalism posits a "queer" kind of property (J.L. Mackie)—utterly unlike anything else in the universe—and a mysterious faculty of "intuition" that lacks explanatory power. It also struggles to explain moral disagreement: if moral truths are self-evident, why do intelligent people disagree so profoundly?
C. Moral Realism in Theological Context
Classical theism provides another form of moral realism: moral properties are grounded in the nature or will of God.
Divine Command Theory: Moral obligations are commands of God. Right actions are those God commands; wrong actions are those God forbids.
Divine Nature Theory (Aquinas, Adams): Moral goodness is not arbitrary divine will but is grounded in God's necessary, unchanging nature. God's commands are expressions of this nature.
Strengths: This view provides a robust foundation for moral objectivity and explains the categorical, authoritative character of moral demands.
Weaknesses: The Euthyphro dilemma remains powerful: Is something good because God commands it (which seems arbitrary), or does God command it because it is good (which makes God subject to an independent standard)? Also, this view is unavailable to non-theists.
III. MORAL ANTI-REALISM: THE CLAIM THAT MORALITY IS NOT REAL
Moral anti-realism denies that moral properties exist objectively and independently. There is no moral reality to be discovered; morality is something we create, project, or express.
A. Error Theory: Morality is a Mistake
Error theory, most famously defended by J.L. Mackie in Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, holds that:
Moral claims purport to describe objective, mind-independent moral facts.
But no such facts exist.
Therefore, all positive moral claims are false.
Mackie's "argument from queerness" contends that objective moral properties, if they existed, would be utterly unlike anything else in the universe—they would have to be both intrinsically action-guiding and objectively prescriptive. Since we have no reason to believe in such queer entities, we should conclude that they do not exist.
Strengths: Error theory takes moral discourse seriously (it doesn't reinterpret it as something else) while maintaining a naturalistic worldview. It explains moral disagreement and the historical variability of moral codes.
Weaknesses: If all moral claims are false, then "murder is wrong" is as false as "murder is right." This seems deeply counterintuitive and undermines the practical function of morality. Error theorists struggle to explain why we should continue moralizing at all.
B. Expressivism (Non-Cognitivism): Morality as Attitude
Expressivism holds that moral claims do not describe facts at all; they express attitudes, emotions, or prescriptions.
A.J. Ayer's Emotivism: "Murder is wrong" does not state a fact but expresses disapproval: "Murder, boo!" It is more like an exclamation than a statement.
C.L. Stevenson's Emotivism: Moral terms have both descriptive and emotive meaning. They express attitudes and are used to influence others' attitudes.
R.M. Hare's Prescriptivism: Moral language is prescriptive—it tells someone what to do. "You ought to X" means something like "Do X!" combined with a commitment to universalize the prescription.
Simon Blackburn's Quasi-Realism: Blackburn attempts to capture the benefits of realism (the appearance that we are talking about objective facts) while maintaining an expressivist foundation. We "project" our attitudes onto the world and then talk as if they were properties of the world.
Strengths: Expressivism fits naturally with a naturalistic worldview. It explains the intimate connection between moral judgment and motivation (if moral judgments are expressions of attitude, their motivational force is built in). It handles the open question argument effortlessly.
Weaknesses: Critics charge that expressivism fails to capture the cognitive content of moral discourse. When we say "torture is wrong," we seem to be saying something about torture, not just expressing our feelings. The "Frege-Geach problem" challenges expressivists to explain how moral terms function in unasserted contexts (e.g., "If torture is wrong, then what X did was wrong"). Expressivists have developed sophisticated responses, but the debate continues.
C. Constructivism: Morality as Rational Construction
Constructivism offers a middle path between realism and anti-realism. Moral truths are not discovered (realism) nor merely projected (expressivism); they are constructed through rational procedures.
Kantian Constructivism (John Rawls, Christine Korsgaard): Moral principles are those that would be agreed upon by rational agents under conditions of fairness (Rawls's original position) or that are constitutive of rational agency itself (Korsgaard).
Humean Constructivism (Sharon Street): Moral values are constructed from our contingent, evaluative starting points through a process of reflective equilibrium. There is no Archimedean point outside our evaluative perspective.
Strengths: Constructivism avoids the metaphysical commitments of realism while preserving moral objectivity (at least relative to a procedure). It explains why moral reasoning matters: we are working out the implications of our own commitments.
Weaknesses: Critics question whether constructivism delivers genuine objectivity. If the procedure is itself a matter of choice, the results may be less binding than moral truth requires. The scope of constructivism (can it generate all moral truths?) is also contested.
IV. THE METAPHYSICAL DEPTH OF ETHICAL ONTOLOGY
The ontology of ethics is not merely an abstract exercise. The position one takes has profound implications for how we understand:
Moral Motivation: If moral properties are real and objective, why should they motivate us? Realists must explain the connection between recognizing a moral fact and being moved to act. Expressivists build motivation into the moral judgment itself.
Moral Disagreement: Realists must explain how sincere, intelligent people can disagree about objective moral truths. Anti-realists must explain why we argue as if there were objective truths.
Moral Progress: If morality is constructed or projected, can there be genuine moral progress? Realists can say we have discovered truths previously hidden. Constructivists can say our constructions have improved. Error theorists face a challenge: "progress" must be defined in non-moral terms.
The Meaning of Life: For many, the reality of moral value is essential to a meaningful life. If morality is an illusion, is life itself illusory? Existentialists like Sartre embraced this conclusion; Camus defiantly affirmed meaning despite the absurd.
V. CONCLUSION: THE UNFINISHED INQUIRY
The ontology of ethics remains one of philosophy's deepest and most contested domains. After millennia of debate, there is no consensus. Each position captures something important:
Realism captures the sense that some things are truly wrong, not just matters of opinion.
Naturalism captures the continuity between ethics and our empirical understanding of the world.
Non-naturalism captures the unique, authoritative character of moral demands.
Theological realism captures the sense that morality is grounded in something transcendent.
Error theory captures the difficulty of fitting morality into a naturalistic worldview.
Expressivism captures the intimate connection between morality and emotion/attitude.
Constructivism captures the active, reasoning dimension of moral life.
Perhaps the deepest truth about the ontology of ethics is that it forces us to confront our own nature as beings who experience the world as morally meaningful. Whether that meaning is discovered in the fabric of reality or projected from the depths of our own subjectivity, the experience of obligation, of value, of right and wrong is as fundamental to being human as perception itself.
In the end, the ontology of ethics is not just about the status of moral properties. It is about who we are—creatures who cannot help but see the world in moral terms, who argue about right and wrong as if it mattered absolutely, and who, in doing so, reveal something essential about the kind of beings we are. Whether that something is a perception of ultimate reality or a reflection of our own deepest nature remains, and may always remain, an open question.
Okay I want some people to try this:
Using only science, math, logic, reason, etc, explain to me why murder is wrong. No theology, morality, philosophy, emotions, feelings, etc. Only cold hard facts. Explain why murder is wrong.
I am trying to see something here.
The is/ought problem rears its ugly head.
I’m intrigued by that, can you explain?
The is/ought problem comes from our boy David Hume and states that there is no a priori reason to say that the way something is implies or requires a particular moral response. So you can say, "Fruits and vegetables are healthy for you" and "If you want to be healthy you should eat fruits and vegetables," but not "Fruits and vegetables are healthy, therefore you ought to eat them." The fact that fruits and vegetables are healthy does not a priori create a moral obligation to eat them.
RationalWIki has a pretty good article on it if you want more details.
The Philosophy of Hume's Guillotine
The "is-ought problem," also known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine, is a fundamental philosophical issue that addresses the relationship between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). The problem was articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1739.
Key Aspects of the Philosophy of the Is-Ought Problem
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Statements:
Descriptive Statements (Is): These are factual statements about the world. They describe how things are. Examples include "Water boils at 100°C" or "Humans need food to survive."
Prescriptive Statements (Ought): These are normative statements that prescribe how things should be. They reflect values, ethics, or duties. Examples include "People ought to help those in need" or "One should tell the truth."
Hume's Formulation:
David Hume observed that many philosophical arguments attempt to derive prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises. He argued that there is a fundamental logical gap between statements about what is and statements about what ought to be. According to Hume, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without introducing some additional normative premise.
Implications for Ethics and Morality:
The is-ought problem has significant implications for moral philosophy. It challenges the notion that objective moral truths can be derived from purely empirical observations. This has led to debates about the foundation of moral principles and the role of reason and emotion in ethical judgments.
Responses to the Is-Ought Problem:
Naturalistic Fallacy: Some philosophers argue that attempts to derive moral principles directly from natural facts commit the "naturalistic fallacy." This term, popularized by G.E. Moore, refers to the mistake of defining moral terms in purely naturalistic terms.
Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs or feelings. They seek to establish a rational basis for bridging the is-ought gap.
Constructivist Approaches: Constructivists propose that moral principles are constructed through rational deliberation, social agreements, or cultural practices, rather than being derived from natural facts.
Virtue Ethics: Some ethical theories, like virtue ethics, focus on the development of moral character and virtues, arguing that moral principles can be grounded in the nature of human flourishing.
Contemporary Debates:
The is-ought problem continues to be a central topic in meta-ethics and the philosophy of language. Philosophers explore whether and how normative statements can be grounded in empirical reality, the role of human psychology in moral reasoning, and the nature of ethical language and meaning.
Conclusion
The philosophy of the is-ought problem challenges us to carefully examine the foundations of our moral and ethical beliefs. By highlighting the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive statements, it invites ongoing reflection on how we justify our moral principles and the ways in which we connect facts about the world with our values and duties.
Morality for the 1000th time
(Shifting related)
Because some people apparently have the thinking skills of a carrot.
It’s gonna be a long post but PLEASE, it’s so worth it. Also it’s important to read till the end to be able to understand the whole thing, and understand my position on the subject, because the beginning can be misleading.
Morality, contrary to what many intuitively assume, is not universal, stable or flawless. It is a human-made concept, a conceptual framework created by societies to regulate behaviour, maintain order, and define what counts as good, bad, just, or unjust. Cmon people, it’s like the very beginning of any philosophy course. What, are you like, 12?
We know that morality is not discovered like gravity or mathematics, it is invented and shaped by culture, context, and human interpretation, just like religion (which is a copying mechanism, and also a big part of where morality come from).
The “rules” of morality exist because we collectively agree they should (for most). History itself demonstrates how morality is not fixed, but constantly evolving (again, basic 8th grade).
Some practices that were once accepted without question are now regarded with horror. In ancient civilizations such as Greece or Rome, slavery was not only legal but seen as normal, even moral. Public executions and torture served as entertainment for crowds, when today they are condemned as barbaric. Children married as early as even before birth in medieval Europe with society’s blessing was common practice (and its still is in some countries). Now, modern (American) ethics recognizes this as exploitation. Yes, American ethics, because it’s still seen as totally acceptable in some countries and cultures.
These examples simply show that morality transforms with time and cultures, proving it is socially constructed rather than objectively fixed.
Even within the same era, morality is still subjective. Two individuals can consider the same action and arrive at opposite moral conclusions. And it can range from atrocious (in my opinion, because morality is subjective) actions, from less dramatic ones. For instance, many people view eating meat as normal and don’t even question it, others believe it morally wrong and that we should stop.
Some support child physical punishment in the name of education, others oppose it as abuse (which is my personal opinion as well (that it is abuse) (but still, it’s subjective)). But a couple of years back, it was totally normal to “educate” yoir child with physical punishment, and wasn’t even questioned.
Lying is generally condemned, yet many feel it becomes acceptable to protect someone from harm.
And this raise a second question: how do we determine in which situation a thing becomes permissible? Ki||ing is currently morally wrong (currently, because it hasn’t always been throughout history), but even if it is currently morally wrong, we (as a society) still believe that killing in the name of defence is permissible. Why? Are we able to provide a reasonable justification for this that dosent involve any feelings or personal perceptions of a situation? Or is this just because we collectively agree that it’s justified, even if we can’t justify that justification? Are we not taking the life of an individual the same way they would have taken ours? Are we then not as bad as them? Why is it justified, isn’t a life being taken anyway? (I’m not saying I’m against self defence, trust me it’s the opposite, I’m just raising questions that we need to answer in order to understand morality properly) (again, one of the basic of philosophy and school in general, don’t drop out of school, there are so many dumb people already).
Religions disagree radically on what is sacred or sinful. This variability shows that morality does not exist outside human perception, it lives inside it.
As philosophers like David Hume argued, moral judgments stem not from objective facts, but from human sentiment.
Nietzsche went further, claiming morality is a tool forged by societies to enforce power and control.
Ruth Benedict demonstrated anthropologically that moral norms differ wildly across cultures, proving they are relative and not universal.
J.L. Mackie, in meta-ethics, argued that objective moral facts simply do not exist.
Since morality is constructed by humans, shaped by culture and changing across history, and interpreted differently by every individual, then it logically follows that morality is not applicable to other people, cultures, religions or era or history. Try applying your morality to country such as North Korea, and we’ll see. Do you know why? Because your morality is not more good or valid than anyone else’s. The fact that you consider someone else’s moral immoral is only because of your personal morals and beliefs, which is a loop, which is a sophism, which is an argument that seems plausible, but is false and incoherently if you start to think about it (but anyway, people lack critical troubling skills those days).
Consequently, it is not applicable to every other realities existing. Another universe, another reality, another form of life could operate under entirely different values, or with no moral concepts at all. A species evolved for cooperation might see altruism as instinct, not moral duty. Another evolved for conflict might view violence as honorable or nurturing.
If I take my personal experience as an example (which is still just a personal experience, but I think it gives a good image of what I’m trying to illustrate), in my Avatar DR it is inconcevable that we kill that much animals and at such a rate. We kill every animals individually and with respect, if my people there saw what us humans would do here, they would be outraged and horrified at the highest levels possible. This is an (non extreme) example, but keep in mind that those comparaison exist on bigger scales. For instance, YES there are realities in which mass murd€r and agressions are normalized and ENCOURAGED. And even if we are outraged and horrified by it here, it won’t stop. The same way we won’t stop mass ki||ing animals to feed a fat and overcoming society. (Yes I am totally against that, and I don’t support it AT ALL, I’m only saying it for educational purposes only).
What we call “good” is meaningless elsewhere, or even inverted. It’s not a universal law, but a local cultural man made concept that exit in the human mind in this reality. An infinity of reality has the exact same morality as ours, but an infinity don’t, an infinity have a morality that goes against everything we despise as a society in this reality, and an infinity of realities don’t even have any concept resembling the idea of a moral guideline. Because it’s a concept that is being invented by societies.
Thus, one of the first lessons in basic philosophy (again, first philosophy class you’ll even get (don’t drop out of school)) is that morality is not absolute but constructed, evolving, and subjective. It changes across centuries, differs between individuals, and cannot be assumed to apply outside the human/cultural/historical sphere. Now let alone to whole different independent reality.
Now come another question, in shifting, why are we condemning someone who shift to a ki||ing DR, but not someone who shift to a Hunger Games DR, an Harry Potter DR, a LOTR DR, ect? It’s a legitimate question, because in those DR, there are ki||ing? The only difference is that it’s romanticized but our culture and cinema. Why is killing someone’s in a killing DR unacceptable, but killing someone in an Harry Potter DR is not? “Because those people are bad people”: So it’s an excuse to commit the same horrific acts as them because somehow when you do it it’s okay but when it’s them it’s not? “Because those people are trying to hurt me/my friends/the world in the first place”: Then why don’t you just script it out? You have the possibility to do so, why don’t you script all that violence and madness out? “Because it would ruin the plot”: You are just the same as those people who have ki||ing DR then? You shift intentionally to DR in which people suffer, only for your personal experience! “Not because it’s different”: No it’s really not. The only difference is that yours is romanticized, but it’s the exact same.
This raise ANOTHER question. If you shift (any DR, any reality, any I don’t care) no matter the concept or anything. If you don’t script out war, ki||ing, violence, 🟣, abuse, ect, then aren’t you the same? Listen because even if you are not directly involved in those action, the fact that you don’t script them out make you as worst as people with a ki||ing DR? The fact that you don’t participate in those actions directly, but that you don’t script them out makes you the same? Because by not scripting it out, you are condemning those people to die?
I know you just thought “no I don’t”, and you are right, you don’t. But why? Are you able to explain and justify why you are not? Well I am: it’s becuase it will happen anyway. This is the concept of constant divergence, which I have a post about named Constant Difference 101. Here it is.
But still, IT IS WRONG for you to do such things (shifting to hurt/ki||/ect). But why? Because from the perspective of this reality (for most, the reality you were born and raised in (well not really because that’s so not how it works, but still). It is considered wrong for you not because this reality objectively defines it as wrong, but because you evolved inside this reality’s moral framework. Your brain, your empathy, your moral judgment were shaped by this moral code. So when you act elsewhere, you do so with the mindset that it is wrong, even if another reality wouldn’t see it that way at all. It may not be wrong in another reality, it is still wrong from you and for you. So yea if you shift to ki||, just, assault, ect, even if it’s normalized there (or not) it’s is not here, and you come from here. But even if it’s wrong, it dosent matter because it won’t change anything. Because your actions domc impact realiry, yous re not THAT powerful, yoir actions just determine the version of reality you’ll become aware of, but it won’t change what happen, it will still happen anyway.
And if you think about doing any of that stuff, you should go see a specialist because WTF.
I know my whole post explained it differently, but it’s because If I want to provide accurate informations, I must do it with fact, not my feelings.
So yes it’s wrong, but its important we understand we can’t apply out morality like that. Why? Because the way we consider someone else’s moral code good or wrong is based on our own morality. And it’s like that for everyone, so why would your morality be the right one, just because your little person believe in it? Its not. But the concept is that if you do something morally wrong based on the moral structure you were raised in, it is wrong.
Don’t drop out of school, or those ignorant people could be you one day.
No I am not a red flag for having the ability of critical thinking and reasoning without being overwhelmed by my little feelings, nor am I for explaining facts even if it dosent fit your narrative or soothe your feelings.
THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR YOU TO GO HURT SOMEONE, SOMETHING OR YOURSELF. THIS IS FOR TEACHING PURPOSES ONLY AND NOR AM I CONDONING THE ACT OF HARMING OR KI||NG. ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE OR CONDONE THOSE BEHAVIOUR AND ACTIONS. ITS THE OPPOSITE, THIS POST IS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN THE MATTER.
-Apeiron
Link To The Masterlist Of My Blog!
You're like the lyrics to my favorite song, hard to forget and always on my mind