The assumption is that all human actions require some sort of reason. That reason could come from instincts, reflexes, rationale, etc

The reason may not be explicit or conscious, but people act for reasons, yes.

Other than your current claim, you have claimed that all human actions require a moral rationale/end/whatever

No, the justification requires moral rationale. Take the stubbing of your toe. If you broke your toe and couldn’t work, it is plausible that someone would express moral indignation at your accident thinking that it was on purpose. The justification would have to be that you intended to walk as normal, not kick the corner. The kicking of the corner on purpose would be immoral, the kicking of the corner on accident may be considered amoral (depending on definitions used), and the walking with no intent to harm (oneself through a broken toe or others through malingering) is moral.

If the above sounds contrived I apologize. The only way I could think of a person being asked to justify an accident would be if it were intentional.

If we combine your current claim with your prior claim, they suggest that actions can be reason-less. They can be completed without any reasoning and only justified post-act. This seems impossible based on my given assumption of actions

People take action for reasons. These need not be conscious or explicit. We usually operate without our reasons being conscious or explicit. But when challenged to give a reason why we acted, we either think back and make conscious that which was unconscious, or we make up a plausible reason with a lie.

Your previous claim is about all human behavior rather than a specific code of conduct accepted only by a group/individual. The specific code of conduct is part of descriptive morality

People have moral codes. All people properly functioning people (pre-emptively heading off the psycho argument) will feel moral indignation. This is a descriptive statement as it does not indicate that the same thing will create moral indignation for all involved.

You claims have been one of "rational" rather than "acceptance" which is also the difference between normative and descriptive morality. A descriptive morality requires no basis in nature. It is just accepted by a group or individual as the correct one. A natural code of conduct that applies to all humans is a normative one

Using the descriptive form is the way we talk about morality as such (not simply yours or mine). It is how we talk about the moral codes of other cultures. It is the recognition that people have different ideas about morality. Normative morality is how we talk about what is actually right or wrong. Once a morality is adopted or accepted by an individual, it is then normative from their perspective.

People do hold normative morality, or things they at least feel indignation about. Looking at people in other cultures, the moral subjectivist sees that they have a whole different set of experiences that make what they are doing rational to them.

Example:

“If only they knew about God like we do, they would be rational and operate this way”

That’s right. When talking about morality as a human behavioral phenomenon, one must talk about it descriptively

We seem to have interpreted the Stanford source differently. I am curious which sections of your own source you can cite to support your view that morality concerning all human behavior is descriptive

Perhaps we are interpreting differently. The article is about what morality is. Put simply, it is a code of conduct. If I am talking about codes of conduct in general, I am speaking descriptively. If I am talking about codes of conduct as being right or wrong, I am speaking normatively.

To say that any given conduct will either be acceptable or unacceptable to any given code is descriptive. To say that conduct which is acceptable to a moral code qualifies as moral as opposed to immoral is descriptive. These are positions that are reasonable arguments not included in the article. They remove amoral conduct from the realm of possibility. Did the article mention amoral conduct? I honestly don’t know.

Remember when I said “To convince people to go to war, one must make a moral argument”.? I’m not saying that going to war is necessarily normatively morally right

Normative morality does not mean that an action must be right or wrong regardless of the code. It just means that an action which falls under the code of conduct is moral for all humans, not just some society that has accepted a specific code

That society takes their morality normatively. The convincing of others to action requires a moral argument in line with their idea of normative morality, their idea of what is right. Objectively describing this situation is to describe morality descriptively.

This is based on my interpretation of the Stanford definition.

Nothing about what I have said contradicts the above quote. When I say that one must make a moral argument in order to promote a given social or economic system, I mean you must convince people to conduct themselves in a given way, or at least justify why a particular way of conducting oneself is right. This is not in conflict with saying that most people do not reason morally before they act

In order for the person to advocate something, they must have a reason. If the reason for an act is only known afterwards, how does the person advocate anything to begin with?

Did you even read my argument? The reason is not “only known afterwards” when one is advocating that people act a certain way. Most people don’t sit around advocating or justifying what they are about to do. But to convince others of the rightness of future conduct (advocate for it) you must make a moral argument.

You describe the conduct as right/wrong which suggests morality. What about better/worse? A person has personal tastes for why something is better than something else. Why aren't there amoral ends?

The choice based on personal taste is justified through hedonism (which you and Cartman both seem to think is amoral). So long as personal taste is detrimental to oneself or others, it can be justified on these grounds.

Instincts and reflexes justify behavior as well

So long as these reasons remove action from the realm of volition, they are equivalent to accidents.

There are also rational justifications that have nothing to do with morality. One person can buy a piece of clothing because it looks nice to him/her. Another person might think another piece of clothing looks nice and buys that instead. A third person buys a piece of clothing to replace another outfit. All these decisions are amoral. Two are based on subjective tastes, and one is based on the need for replacement

Two are hedonistic in nature and one is functional to the preservation of one’s life. So long as these decisions are not considered unacceptable to a given moral code, then they are acceptable. They are moral. Again, our difference lies in my argument for a continuum of right behavior.

The nature of morality is inherently normative. You are claiming a natural morality

I’m not claiming a natural morality, I am claiming that morality is naturel…There is a big difference

Having no moral considerations before or during an act does not remove the act itself from the realm of morality, nor does it eliminate one’s ability to reason about it morally after the fact. (Nobody considers the moral habits they have formed)

So the only acts that are not morally justified beforehand are those that are considered habitual. You should have qualified it as this from the beginning

Don’t be dishonest. I gave the example of habit to illustrate actions that are not justified ahead of time. This is not the same as saying “the only acts that not morally blah blah blah”.

To justify something is to prove that it is right or reasonable. There is no amoral way to prove that an act is right or reasonable

I agree with this statement. We just have a different interpretation of "reasonable". "Right" concerns are moral concerns. "Reasonable" concerns are amoral concerns

An action can be considered reasonable to attain a given end. The end can be innocuous. But that end is always the means to something else, until you arrive at the fundamental goal. The standard for the good. I would have normative arguments about what this is, but descriptively speaking, not all agree with me.

It is reasonable to eat when one is hungry

This is in the maintenance of ones life, a moral justification. It becomes unreasonable when the person is morbidly obese and eating when hungry is detrimental to the maintenance of ones life.

It is reasonable to eat food that you prefer over food that you do not prefer given that both foods are available

Hedonistic. No harm no foul. Acceptable to a moral code and therefore moral. If you prefer pork, there is a moral issue.

It is reasonable to favor the theory of evolution over the theory of creation because the theory of evolution has more empirical value

The pursuit of truth is a moral pursuit. You should realize that this is a normative statement based on the values that compose your moral code which are in conflict with the values of creationists with both sides valuing truth as a good. Truth is linked to honesty.

Code of conducts in descriptive and normative morality both claim right/wrong. Descriptive morality limits the right/wrong to people within that society. Normative morality applies the right/wrong to all humans

I believe I have address this above. To say humans have humor is a statement about humanity. To say that humans have morality is also a statement about humanity. To discuss that nature of morality (that all humans have) is descriptive. I am not saying it is right or wrong to have morality, I am saying that people have it.

For written codes of conduct, alegal conduct is just any conduct that falls outside of the scope of the code. If it is the dress code of a restaurant, then building regulations would be considered alegal relative to that specific code

Legal codes concern human conduct. It is the explicit form of implicit morality. Conduct is either illegal or legal. A dress code concerns dress, this is not analogous to laws.

Earlier you claimed that there are behavior that fall outside of the scope. Now you claim that all behavior is within scope

And I apologized for my use of the word “scope” as it was incorrect for my purposes.

There is no definition of morality which claims that a moral code must address all types of behavior

There is no definition that puts wrongness on a continuum, yet it is that way in every moral code. I am putting rightness on a continuum as well. When one justifies an action, they show it to be morally acceptable by not being in moral breach. This is a moral argument.

My example of Hobbes and Kant illustrate this point.

No. You have misinterpreted both because of confirmation bias. Kant's code of conduct notes the immoral nature of harming the self or others. It also notes that the opposite which is to not harm the self or others is moral (good). Any action that does not relate to the harming or not harming of the self or others is considered amoral

All action is either harmful or not harmful.

Similar explanation for Hobbes and his Leviathan. His code of conduct believes that survival of the fittest leads to immorality while suppressing that biological basis leads to morality (goodness). All conduct that does not relate to survival would be considered amoral

If you consider the hierarchy of needs, flourishing is what happens when one survives well. All action relates to survival and to surviving well. Art appreciation can only be done when one is surviving well, which cannot be done in a state of nature. If you consider art appreciation to be amoral, consider that the moral framework from which Hobbes was operating was in pursuit of making possible this amoral activity, which would not be possible without adhering to his morality (according to him).

EDIT: While Kant presents an position about morality, Hobbes attempts to present a moral position. Hobbes sought to show how removing man from a state of nature is moral for the reasons you mentioned. It is not a presentation of a moral code, it is a moral argument based on his own underlying moral code which has notions of goodness based on survivability,

This should be "amorality to be reserved for things unrelated to the code of conduct." The purpose of qualifying conduct with a specific code is to differentiate between all conduct and a specific code. That was the definition provided by Stanford. Your personal code of conduct may include all conduct, but that does not mean that all codes of conduct include all conduct

All conduct will either be acceptable or unacceptable to any given code. No matter the code. This is a descriptive statement.

There are plenty of things that are alegal. Any action that is not addressed by law is considered alegal

HAHAHA. Alegal is only a word according to the uban dictionary. No action is actually considered “alegal” only legal or illegal.

any action permitted by a moral code as right/moral is right. Any action that is not permitted is wrong

You are making my point. Moral codes are vague and implicit. Any action not address by a vague and implicit moral code is accepted by it.

Let me just give you an example of legal, illegal, and alegal. Before the passing of anti-miscegenation laws in the US, miscegenation was alegal

A thing that is not illegal, is legal. There is no such thing as alegal.

I have to leave now, I will address the rest of your post when time permits.

PART 2:

I already pointed out the part of rationality that is subjective. Rationality depends on personal assumptions. Assumptions depend on perspective which is subjective. If we all share the same assumptions and are given the same information, we will arrive at the same conclusions. Since we do not all share the same assumptions, and it would be impossible to completely replicate another person's perspective, Rationality is subjective

This is a minor point and perhaps unimportant. Since rationality must be based on the information at hand, and different people have different information, 2 people can arrive and different conclusions through rational means. This doesn’t make rationality subjective. It makes the availability and experience of true premises subjective

Refer to the above. You have either altered the definition or misinterpreted them. That is my claim. I have supported it with quotes from the Stanford definition as well as dictionary.com in another post

Since you posted all of the various definitions (many of which do not apply), I copied the parts of the definitions that you posted that show which form of the definition I am using. The use of one of many legitimate definitions is not a misuse or an alteration.

Regarding just the logic. Given the set of A is a subset of B, we cannot conclude that B is a subset of A without more information. Answering the question, "How is A a subset of B?" with "B is a subset of A" is not valid

It’s not a matter of subsets, it’s a matter of what terms are used to explain a given situation. Your logical construct doesn’t accurately reflect the conversation. When I said that some moral issues, are explained in instinctual terms, I am also saying that the instinctual situation is explained in moral terms. The logic is fine. Your disagreement with the actual instinctual nature of my example is more valid.

A person stubbing his toe is an action

A person stubbing his toe is a person in action. But can you say that a person takes the action of stubbing his toe (assuming it was on accident)? Not really. A person walks, the stubbing of the toe happens to him. A tree falling on me is an action. Failing to see it coming is not an action I take.

A person performs an action based on some superstition about improving luck (blowing a dice before tossing it). His belief in the modification of luck was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral

If a person finds superstition and luck to be evil, and challenges the act of blowing on dice, the likely response would be “it’s not hurting anybody”, which is moral reasoning and a moral justification.

A person advocates for socialism over capitalism because he believes it will lead to more prosperity. His belief in the economic system was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral

Prosperity is a moral end. It is the justification one would invoke if challenged. Socialists under moral condemnation have in the past cited the notion that the ends justify the means. Arguing that people should interact in a certain way for their own good, for the sake of prosperity, is a moral argument.

Your claim is that it must concern morality. My claim is that eating can concern morality, but it can also be amoral. My example provides one type of eating that is generally amoral: eating food that you have gathered/paid/grown for yourself

Any justifiable means of eating, are moral in nature, as the act cannot be justified in other terms.

There are people who take your position, such as the folks at Santa Clara University who said “But are moral principles all that ethics consists of? Critics have rightly claimed that this emphasis on moral principles smacks of a thoughtless and slavish worship of rules, as if the moral life was a matter of scrupulously checking our every action against a table of do's and don'ts”. This becomes a half hearted promotion of virtue ethics. Anyway. (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicsandvirtue.html)

They recognize that people are often unconcerned, consciously, with the morality of their conduct. For this reason, you might be inclined to call their actions amoral. This is the error. According to the simplified explanation at vocabulary.com “If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong”. This leaves the actual actions within the realm of morality, regardless of your thoughts about it. If one is required to think back in order to justify a thoughtless innocuous action, such as eating pork, they will have a ready explanation based on quick moral reasoning such as “it’s not hurting anyone”, or “it tastes good”.

Also from vocabulary.com: “If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong”

While this doesn’t prove my position correct, it does show that it is not as anomalous as you and Cartman suggest.

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/amoral-immoral/

I went ahead and found a source to support your position as well. I don’t agree with it for the reasons I have repeatedly given, but still it’s a source in your favor. If you check it out, you will find all the words related to moral are discussed minus the word moral.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/amoral.html

My claim is that economic systems can also be advocated for amorally. There is a mathematical aspect to economic systems because they are based on economic theories and models. There are also numerous economic studies that measure the effectiveness of specific factors based on specific implementations. We can advocate for one system over another based purely on empirical value. I believe we agree that empirical value is amoral

The key word is “effectiveness”. The issue will only seem to be amoral to you, if the people involved already have no moral qualms about the ends for which they wish to more effectively attain. An absence of qualms would exist if the ends already fit into the accepted morality of the society involved. The ends are moral. The proof of this would be presented if anyone ever argued that they weren’t.

Just because some people have advocated for economic systems from a moral stance does not mean that all advocacy must come from a moral stance

It’s not something that “some” people have done. Invoking a fundamental moral premise is done by all who advocate for people acting a certain way. Rather than saying this isn’t so, give an example.

By the way, there are many types of socialist systems. A person can advocate for one socialist system over another. If both systems hold the same moral value, how would one advocate for one over another? Perhaps through some amoral means?

Seeking the best way to attain the agreed upon moral end only seems amoral to you because everyone agrees on the morality of the end involved. If a church sets out to feed the hungry, and one group within the church wants to do it a certain way while another group claims a more efficient way, how long before people start into the moral accusations about concern for the moral ends. “Do you even care about feeding the poor?!”

“I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here). I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such)”

Ok. I am pretty sure that you are using a different definition than the Stanford source. We should probably use the Stanford one for consistency.

"The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,

some other group, such as a religion, or

accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

You really don’t see how this is exactly how I am using it? People and societies put forth their own view of morality all the time. This is what we are talking about.

They take their moral code to be normative, while we discuss it in descriptive terms. By stepping back and discussing morality in objective terms, we are talking about it descriptively. Saying that “all people engage in moral reasoning” is a descriptive statement of fact. Saying that “all people should engage in moral reasoning based on the bible” is a normative moral statement. Talking about how other people make normative statements is a descriptive statement. You may haven’t noticed I haven’t been making “should” or “ought” statements, these would be normative.

Rather than restating the definition which I have been operating from, while claiming that I haven’t, you might consider showing how I haven’t. This will be more difficult than the pretending you are attempting here.

The basic part. You should read the rest of your source. It actually counters quite a bit of your points. Also... why the hell did you not read your own source?

I did. If what you say is true, you would have quoted it more. So far when you have quoted what you thought was against my view, I explained to you what the source was actually saying. (The part where you thought it was discussing how well people agree when it was actually describing the nature of rationality according to the normative view)

The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain.

The issue does not have to be the cause of the pain. It can also be the action in response to pain. If we behave in a certain way around pain (like avoid it), that is still a form of conduct. The fact that people avoid pain as typical behavior is an amoral one

People don’t actually avoid pain as such. We all know that there are some things that are painful and necessary. We avoid harm. We usually know harm through pain. The extent to which people are unable to control their own movements as a result of pain, is the extent to which their actions are accidental. People don’t take accidental action, it just happens.

”I’m saying my earlier comments do. If there is an incorrect earlier usage, it was a typo. Even so, you would need to find and quote my typo to justify your assertion

I did quote the parts. You just claimed my interpretation was different from the intended message. I don't see how "the concept of supply and demand" equates to "the phenomenon of supply and the phenomenon of demand" in your mind. This indicates some confusion on your part”

Saying “I did quote this part” is not the same as an actual quote. I don’t recall conflating concept with phenomenon. I do remember repeatedly using them differently in the hopes that you would know what I was talking about.

It is not the concept that differentiates them but the definition of the words

How do you think we know how to define things? It’s by describing the concept.

We create words to describe phenomenon

We utilize concepts to define words.

This is clearly a mistake on your part

Again, you put up the same definition I have been using and claim that I haven’t been using it.

The phenomenon itself exists

Which is what I said when you started acting like I think theories are facts or ideas are physical things. It’s just like I said earlier. If I had my own wiki page you would quote it and pretend I said something else. WTF.

”An painting can be promoted based on how accurately it represents its subject. The degree of accuracy is not a debate over the existence of the subject. A debate about how accurately reality is represented in mathematics and theory is not a debate about the existence of the reality being analyzed”

It seems that the semantics issue was the difference between a concept and a phenomenon. Hopefully, you understand the difference now

This is getting downright petty. My post was in response to your comment, ”The model of "supply and demand" does not represent the phenomenon of "supply" and "demand" at all. There is no accuracy to contest because the existence of "supply" and "demand" are factual”.

The model of supply and demand is meant to represent the behavior of the phenomenon. The extent to which it accurately does this is the extent to which it can be promoted as a good model. Of course there’s accuracy to contest. This is because the there is an actual phenomenon to compare it to. Again with the snooty ignorance.

“When you looked up that definition, what did it give as an example of an economic model? Was it a fucking paragraph?”

It provided both. Below is the paragraph. You can find the curve yourself.

"The four basic laws of supply and demand are:[1]:37

If demand increases (demand curve shifts to the right) and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.

If demand decreases (demand curve shifts to the left) and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.

If demand remains unchanged and supply increases (supply curve shifts to the right), a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.

If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases (supply curve shifts to the left), a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price."

That is usually how explanations usually go. They explain the same concept in multiple ways

You have provided a paragraph that explains a model, not a paragraph that IS a model. That was pretty weak flewk. Regardless, I found a simple explanation for you from Harvey Mudd College:

“There are four types of models used in economic analysis, visual models, mathematical models, empirical models, and simulation models.

- Visual models are simply pictures of an abstract economy; graphs with lines and curves that tell an economic story.

- The most formal and abstract of the economic models are the purely mathematical models.

- Empirical models are mathematical models designed to be used with data

- Simulation models, which must be used with computers, embody the very best features of mathematical models without requiring that the user be proficient in mathematics. The models are fundamentally mathematical”

http://www2.hmc.edu/~evans/chap1.pdf

Hope that clears it up for you.

Read your Stanford source. I have no idea why you posted something that you did not even read. Or, you did read it misunderstood it completely. Or, I misunderstood it completely. I re-read a large portion of it just to be sure of my interpretation

I have read it. If I were you I wouldn’t bother to re-read again as it’s not helping. Your failure to actually address anything wrong with my interpretation betrays your own lack of understanding. When I described my use of normative vs descriptive language, it was to show how my usage draws necessarily from the definitions provided by Stanford. Your failure to understand the implications of the definition is not my shortcoming.

I’ll make one more attempt to explain:

“I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here)”. People who adopt a specific morality and adhere to it, view it from a normative perspective. They view it as actually right when compared to other morality.

The Stanford definition is in line with other definitions as well. According to Wikipedia, “It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act” and is “ distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs”. Hopefully the second half of that wiki quote explains the rest of my post that you are confused by: “I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such)”