What metaethical theory do you disagree with but find interesting from a philosophical perspective?

Emotivism is a somewhat woolly ethical theory.

Simplistic for sure.

Moral absolutism. I would love a world where things are objectively right or wrong, but I'm painfully aware that if I were placed in certain cultures or points in history I might not bat an eyelash at things I would consider unconscionable today, or conversely might consider some harmless act an abomination. I'm a reluctant moral relativist, I suppose. I would like to be persuaded that morality is more than how good society happens to be at the time.

I'm a reluctant moral relativist, I suppose. I would like to be persuaded that morality is more than how good society happens to be at the time.

I would probably have to reread and review things before ever being comfortable debating the topic, but, imo, the absolute best case for moral realism comes from reading the following 4 books:

After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre

On Virtue Ethics by Rosalind Guesthouse

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism by Terence Cueno

Moral Realism: A Defence by Russ Shafer-Landau

It was reading those books while talking with a friend that was a grad student for metaethics that ultimately convinced me of moral realism. I have been intending to buy them (as unread them by borrowing them before) and reread them, but if you are interested in the topic then this is probably a good place to start.

The Bible is free online.

I find moral epistemology to be a difficult philosophy to support considering that the ancient Greeks, for a period of time, thought and practiced that every crime committed deserved the death penalty as deterrent to any crime, yet crime continued to be committed. It is relatable to the current Democrat theory that banning guns will end death by gun, ignoring that a gun is just a tool that requires a human brain and hand to use the tool, and that, on its own, laying on a table, the gun will harm, let alone kill, no one. The same can be said for any tool that might be used as a handheld weapon. Are we going to ban spoons?

You'll probably find a bible gathering dust on a lot of shelves.

I used to have one. (Bible and dusty shelf)

No idea where it is now, or you could have had that one. (Not the shelf)

Still have shelves, but have moved house several times, so different shelves now, though undoubtedly dusty.

We're not big on dusting.

Though Mrs Lynch has recently treated us to a new cordless vacuum cleaner, which has been charged, but is still awaiting it's maiden voyage.

Such is Metaethics.

Oh cool, thanks. Can you recommend one to begin with.

One is certainly a good place to start.

When you've mastered One, you can then move on to Two.

Such are Metaethics.

Emotivism

"The idea that ethical statements are mere expressions of emotional states in regards to certain actions, states of being, ect."

- PhilosophicalJay #1

I'm still not sure I understand,

So, statement that stealing is wrong, could be described by Emotivism as,

My stealing will make me unhappy, because I don't like stealing even when I do it. So Boo to stealing.

My stealing will make me happy, because I like stealing when I do it. So Hurrah stealing.

Others stealing will make me unhappy, because I empathize with people's suffering. So Boo to stealing.

Others stealing will make me neutral, because I don't empathize with others suffering. So Nothing to stealing.

Society says stealing is wrong, because enough of the people who make the law are unhappy by stealing in general. So Boo to stealing.

Though I suppose the emotion doesn't have to be 'happy/unhappy?

. . .

Stealing is wrong, because it might happen to me and make me angry. But I only 'say such, to encourage 'others not to steal.

Hm, shame, guilt, surprise, fear, gratitude.

https://exestentialcomics.com/comic/42

A Dialogue on Happiness

. . . Hm, could one say all emotions are happ- Hm, positive or negative?

Some surprised sensations are nice, but then that is excitement, not fear.

Amused, Bored.

Grateful, Resentful.

Some people prioritize the miserable though. Pursue and uphold ethical choices that don't make them 'happy.

Unless one considers fulfilled duty a 'sort of happiness.

Panpsychism is quite intesting to read about

Structural functionalism is a good one.

And then there's abstract meta-fabricationalism, it's a beauty.

Not to mention deconstructive hyper-materialistic deconsructionalism, don't mess with this one unless you have a big beard and failed at sciences.

My stealing will make me unhappy, because I don't like stealing even when I do it. So Boo to stealing.

My stealing will make me happy, because I like stealing when I do it. So Hurrah stealing.

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them do onto you---- aka ‘ thank you ‘ aka ‘ blessing towards others ‘ has a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there

were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with

compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of

humanity or its distinct tribes. "

Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God/Universe is instantaneous, forgiveness

by humans takes time.

Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and tooth for a tooth. { im not sure if

any animals other than humans practice this concept }

Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have

them share with you."

Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all

humans, does not necessitate chaos."

Bible is available free online.save yourself from needing to dust them.

Really depends on how familiar you are with the philosophical discourse, but I'd personally say to start with After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre.

The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism by Terence Cueno is really good, but probably the last of the 4 you should read. It does an excellent job arguing for normative moral facts by employing a companions in guilt argument with normative epistemic facts, and is one of the big hitters within more academic circles for that reason, but it is the other works that really lay the groundworks for moral realism.

The Bible is the best book on morality.

Really now? What logic is employed to argue for moral realism within the Bible? What means do we have to understand what is good or not in the Bible (not just what it says is good or not, but the method to employ for cases that aren't strictly commented on)? Etc.

John 15:13

This is my commandment: that you love each other as I have loved you. There is no greater love thanthis—that a man should lay down his life for his friends

Good job, you failed to actually answer my questions!

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). 

I think Molinism and epiphenomenalism are both interesting, but I don't subscribe to either one. Actually, I think the whole subject of mental causation, whether you think it happens or not, is an interesting subject.

It is the most important commandment in the Bible.

Great, but I asked for the logic behind the ethical system, not merely a singular command.

The logic behind the ethical system is to love humanity and be prepared to make sacrifices.

Ethical systems can be variable.

I go for the fuck humanity and keep your head down approach.

Such are metaethics.

How can fuck humanity be ethical. Or part of meta ethics.

Well firstly, meta-ethics is a somewhat woolly philosophical exercise.

And ethics are the principles that govern an individual or group behaviour.

It's incorrect to think that ethical means cuddly wuddly, and unethical means horrible worrible.

Because we only assume to know which is which, and our own principles might not correspond with someone else's.

An obvious example would be the comparative moral principles of the vegan and the omnivore.

So Debby.

Can you think of an absolute moral principle that is sacrosanct and never challenged.

I would suggest that punishment, revenge and inherent selfishness have always afforded us the ability to be selectively moral.

Can you think of an absolute moral principle that is sacrosanct and never challenged.

There is eternally two sides { viewpoints } or two options --if not many more-- to be considered for each individuals choice, as to what will best serve them ---family, other or humanity-- in their current situation/circumstances.

The two viewpoints may be appear as diametric opposites poles of consideration. Top-bottom, left-right, in-out

Yaw, pitch and/or roll withing the circumstances context we find ourselves in. 6 degrees { powers } of freedom, before a twist/torque is considered and four other fundamental motions, that, we may metaphorical equate with moral decision making.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch,_yaw,_and_roll

Examples of Proposed Absolute Principles

1. Murder is always wrong. 
2. 
   
3. It is always wrong to steal. 
4. 
   
5. You should not force others to do things through threats. 
6. 
   
7. Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act only according to a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law.