Thomas Ash

It's not circular because morality still needs to be justified. If you say that there is no real source of morality, then obviously there's no reason why you should be moral. But if you think that there are moral obligations, then you think you should follow them. So far as I can see, you're suggesting that you could think at the same time "it is a moral rule that I should do X" and "there's no reason why I should do X".
I'm not saying that you should do A because A says so, I'm just saying that if you already accept the existence of an objective morality, then you should follow the rules in that morality.

Thomas Ash

Hey, that's not such a bad thing!

Thomas Ash

Of course you can always not do what you think you should, and lots of people do so every day. But if you look at my quote above, they don't claim that they both should do these things, and that whether they choose to or not is arbitrary. The OP was claiming that why you should be moral was a separate question from the existence of morality, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't think you are getting the point. There is a process of deciding what are proper moral "rules" or "edicts" and there is the discussion of why one would follow the "rules" or the "edicts."

If they are the same then you need to produce an arguemnt which establishes such.

If "Why be moral" is a moral question then I can say "I should follow moral system X because moral system X says I should follow it." Clearly this is not allowable because of its circularity. Thus, "Why be moral" cannot be said to be a moral question.

DC

DRFseven

That's what I'm addressing. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm reading you as saying that if one thinks there is such a thing as moral behavior, that one is bound to practice it. Why so?

Kachana

Sure, and I granted that by saying that the decision to be rational was accepted axiomatically, as a personal preference. So now the problem has collapsed from one of "why be moral" to one of "why be rational." Most people (at least on this site) see no problem whatsoever in taking it as axiomatic, as a personal preference, that they should be rational; is the decision any different for the theist when framed in this way? Sure it's still a personal preference, but one that we all make and accept.

I suppose that could pose problems for the theist thinking about it though since personal preference is removed from God (the source of morality) and so an unreasonable basis for them to start from, them being mere mortals whose personal preferences account for very little and etc. etc. For an atheist subjectivist this problem doesn't arise since no objective external basis is claimed or sought.

idiom

How about:

Be moral because its more fun.

It doesn't answer why fun is important but if you dont know why fun is important the not even the moderators can help you.

DRFseven

posted by idiom:But why ought we to have fun? Sure, we all know why it seems important to us, but is there any mandate to have fun/be happy/survive?

Thomas Ash

What process do you think we have for deciding what are proper moral rules or edicts? Perhaps if you told me that I'd see why you consider "why be moral?" to be a separate question from the very existence of moral rules and edicts. And how do you define a "rule" or "edict" if not as something you should do. Of course, you might not think there are any moral rules or edicts.
I still can't quite believe that you think "Why be moral?" is a separate moral question from other moral questions like "Why is it immoral to slap people with mackerels?"

Thomas Ash

That's the right reading, if my 'bound to' you mean 'ought to.' I'm not claiming that people who think some types of behaviour are moral will always follow them. I'm just saying that they will think they ought to follow them - that's part-and-parcel of thinking some actions are moral or immoral. If you disagree, what do you think there being such a thing as moral behaviour means?