Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

So on your view no individual could have an idiosyncratic moral objection relative to his socio-cultural group? That is, their objection couldn't be characterized as a moral objection on your view?

That's how agreement is reached, after battles between those with different approaches to moral issues.

When it comes to the agreed mores of populations of animals (including human), those who are unusually cooperative will tend to be railroaded by more exploitative individuals. The world's polity today is as good an example of this as any. (Really just a re-run of the old "nice guys finish last" maxim).

It's a hard world. Nature is brutal. Humans, despite their affectations, operate en masse much like any other invasive species. What is morality but a means for a group not to self-destruct? (as per game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMkADpvO4w).

Then again, what of morality when there is not enough food (or toilet rolls) and people fight to survive (or enjoy having a clean, dry bottom post-ablution)?

Okay, but if that idiosyncratic objection is a moral objection, then it can't be the case that what morality is about is agreed rules of engagement in a group.

The idiosyncratic objection isn't an agreed rule of engagement, yet we're calling it a moral objection. So morality must be about something else. (Which is my view, where I disagree with "morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group"; groups will have agreed-upon morals, but that agreement isn't what morality is.)

[creation]

To me, adult human beings are far more selfish than wolves, bears, and lions. Also, to me, only human beings are immoral.

There's much exploitation and theft amongst other species too.

Exploitation and theft are only human constructs and concepts.

Also, saying others species do these things is one way people self-"justify" their own exploiting and thieving behaviors

That's where we got it from, just that we have (as with most things) refined such things into a fine art.

So, are you saying or "justifying" you get your obviously wrong behaviors from "others", therefore those behaviors are acceptable?

I say, if a behavior is wrong, then it is wrong. Full stop.

Morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group.

And, this group is ALL human beings correct?

If theft, rape and bullying are accepted in the group (eg. dolphins), then those things are not immoral, so your last point is fair. Still, these groups have different morals, often related to food sharing and mutual grooming.

What?

The only group and animal that morality is an issue for and to is the animal group known as human beings. What any other animal does is of no concern nor is of no issue with and for human beings.

Are you trying to suggest that if some other species thieve, rape, and bully (like dolphins do), then these are justifiable and/or acceptable behaviors for the human species as well?

[creation]

Yes. Humans are self-obsessed. That is how so many humans can posit that a tiny piece of protoplasmic muck (aka a human embryo) is more important than any sentient, intelligent and bonded adult mammal of another species. Thus, those who speak of a "right to life" will typically speak of the sanctity of life while chomping down eat large portions of factory-farmed steak and/or pork every day.

Humans tend to see any moral system that is fair to humans as fair per se. Other sentient beings do not count, being largely treated as a moral null unless they are considered to be loveable, valuable or useful to humans.

Of course, many other social animals are similarly solipsist and ruthlessly bloody-minded, but none of those species claim to be far morally superior to all others.

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

Yes, it seems that with the "higher thinking" functions comes with the ability to deceive. You have to love dogs for their honesty. If they don't like you (or another dog) they do not hesitate to let you know.
I eat meat. I'm not going to apologise for it, but if push came to shove I have no doubt that I would protect my own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger.

So, it appears that, to you, it is perfectly alright for your dog to show its hatred of other human beings and animals, but it is never alright for another human being nor animal to show its hatred for or towards your dog, correct?

[creation]

Greta wrote:

I have watched toilet paper panic buying in a recent days in response to the smallest hint of a supply shock, with people walking out of shops with months of toilet rolls, ensuring that others will have none. It reminds me that human moral superiority is an illusion and delusion. We are exactly as selfish and immoral as wolves, bears and lions. Only a thin veneer of civilisation providing a sense of security stands between humans and total moral breakdown.

What follows is morality is not objective: we are on Earth not in Heaven.

Unlike other animals(presumably) we can imagine Heaven by way of analogies with whatever we believe is good. Wolves, bears, lions, viruses, and feral humans are good if we view them as necessary beings. How to steer clear of fatalism is to understand human culture evolves according to human long -term intentions. For long term intentions to exist there has to be somebody capable of imagining human living as extending to many others. At one time humans were tribal, now we, most of us, have the opportunity to be universal. What causes panic buying is fear which results in impotence when there is threat to life. Potency includes courage, imagination, reason, and knowledge. I suggest a top candidate for objective morality is universalism.

Or, when everyone agrees.

Those moral issues that everyone agrees on and with and accepts is what makes morality objective.

Knowing what is right in Life and what is wrong in Life, and then only doing what is right in Life with and for everyone leads to living on earth as it is in 'Heaven'. Or, in other words leads to everyone living in peace and harmony together as One.

[creation]

Greta wrote:



What follows is morality is not objective: we are on Earth not in Heaven.

Unlike other animals(presumably) we can imagine Heaven by way of analogies with whatever we believe is good. Wolves, bears, lions, viruses, and feral humans are good if we view them as necessary beings. How to steer clear of fatalism is to understand human culture evolves according to human long -term intentions. For long term intentions to exist there has to be somebody capable of imagining human living as extending to many others. At one time humans were tribal, now we, most of us, have the opportunity to be universal. What causes panic buying is fear which results in impotence when there is threat to life. Potency includes courage, imagination, reason, and knowledge. I suggest a top candidate for objective morality is universalism.

How universal is universalism?

Absolutely everyone of course.

How far does the sphere of concern extend?

Infinitely, to everyone.

How to determine conflicts of rival goods?

There are no conflicts because there are rival goods. If you think or believe there is, then list them down, then we can look at them and discuss them to see if in fact there is any conflict or any rivalry or not.

To me, there is only one good (or right) and one bad (or wrong) for everyone, which everyone agrees with.

[creation]

Are you claiming that there actually are moral points of views that everyone could agree on?

Could agree on or do agree on?

Are you asking me if I am using the word could or do in my question to you, then my answer is 'My question is as it stands'.

If, however, you asking me if there are any moral points of views that everyone could agree on or do agree on, then my answer is 'Both'.

There are obvious moral points of views that everyone does agree on right now in the days of when this is written.

But what people agree on and what they do can be completely opposing, contradictory, and/or hypocritical things.

If just "could," are you simply saying it would be logically possible?

I was not "saying" anything. Unlike others, when I ask a question, I am asking a question. I am not "saying" anything. Others might be trying to say something when they ask questions, but I do not do this. When I ask a question I am asking it from a truly open perspective and are just curious as to what is the answer to that question from the other.

If, however, someone was to ask me, for example, something like: Are you claiming that there actually moral points of views that everyone could agree on, then I would just answer that with the word 'Yes'.

I will need to know how you define the word 'objective' here?

I didn't see your earlier post. The question I asked you was with respect to however you're using "objective."

But how I use the word 'objective' could be completely different than you and others do. In fact how I use some words might be the exact opposite way that you or others use that word. Therefore, confusion will set in if I answer a question posed to me if, and when, the other has the exact opposite definition in meaning and/or intention.

Usually people who argue in favor of objective morality want the objectivity of morality to have a normative role.

Well I say and mean a lot of things very differently than how people usually say and mean things, which can be clearly seen and evidenced throughout my writings, if, and when, what I say and write is ever clarified.

Are you not aiming for that, and you're instead simply naming something "objective" without objectivity having any normative implication?

You can twist and distort anything anyway you like. But if you are too afraid to define the word 'objective' to you, or just do not want to define what the word 'objective' means to you, then are you willing to define what the word 'normative' means here to you?

Because if you do not, then we are in the same predicament. That is; I will not know how to answer your questions properly and correctly so that you do not misinterpret, misconstrue, and/or misunderstand my answers and replies.

[creation]

That's how agreement is reached, after battles between those with different approaches to moral issues.

When it comes to the agreed mores of populations of animals (including human), those who are unusually cooperative will tend to be railroaded by more exploitative individuals. The world's polity today is as good an example of this as any. (Really just a re-run of the old "nice guys finish last" maxim).

It's a hard world. Nature is brutal. Humans, despite their affectations, operate en masse much like any other invasive species. What is morality but a means for a group not to self-destruct? (as per game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMkADpvO4w).

Then again, what of morality when there is not enough food (or toilet rolls) and people fight to survive (or enjoy having a clean, dry bottom post-ablution)?

Okay, but if that idiosyncratic objection is a moral objection, then it can't be the case that what morality is about is agreed rules of engagement in a group.

The idiosyncratic objection isn't an agreed rule of engagement, yet we're calling it a moral objection. So morality must be about something else. (Which is my view, where I disagree with "morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group"; groups will have agreed-upon morals, but that agreement isn't what morality is.)

So, if agreement is not what morality is, then what is 'morality', to you, "terrapin station"?

[Sy Borg]

That's how agreement is reached, after battles between those with different approaches to moral issues.

When it comes to the agreed mores of populations of animals (including human), those who are unusually cooperative will tend to be railroaded by more exploitative individuals. The world's polity today is as good an example of this as any. (Really just a re-run of the old "nice guys finish last" maxim).

It's a hard world. Nature is brutal. Humans, despite their affectations, operate en masse much like any other invasive species. What is morality but a means for a group not to self-destruct? (as per game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMkADpvO4w).

Then again, what of morality when there is not enough food (or toilet rolls) and people fight to survive (or enjoy having a clean, dry bottom post-ablution)?

Okay, but if that idiosyncratic objection is a moral objection, then it can't be the case that what morality is about is agreed rules of engagement in a group.

The idiosyncratic objection isn't an agreed rule of engagement, yet we're calling it a moral objection. So morality must be about something else. (Which is my view, where I disagree with "morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group"; groups will have agreed-upon morals, but that agreement isn't what morality is.)

At it core, morality is a group's rules of engagement. Consider the capuchin monkey experiment - the insistence on fairness. That's where it starts. You have a group that must work out how to divide resources and labour in order to be cohesive enough to compete with other groups. Clearly, cohesion promotes the health of a group and divisions weakens them.

Today, morality seems to have largely evolved to be treated as a badge of merit that allows access to certain professional or professional circles, often deeply tied up with broader political or religious ideologies. So often morality appears to be a p1ssing contest, a battle for the high ground. But that's another story that speaks of just how far humans continue fall from the ideals they set themselves.

In terms of natural selection, more cohesive groups survived better than more chaotic or divided ones. But a group consists of individuals so, to address your objection, we need to consider what is going on with individuals in those groups. What are the internal dynamics that lead individuals to be cooperative rather than selfish? Chances are, it's been conditioned into them, consciously and unconsciously, by their families and social groups. There would also be genetic factors, but genetics are just retained conditioning by the environment, the conditioning of the past (which is why fossil DNA is being used to ascertain condition on the Earth in past eons.

That combination makes up an individual, with his or her own preferences.

[Belindi]

Greta wrote:

How universal is universalism? How far does the sphere of concern extend? How to determine conflicts of rival goods?

Universalism , ideally,is infinite in its concern. We learn soil structure and composition is a matter of importance. I can't think of anything that doesn't matter.

Conflicts of rival goods. Utilitarianism is good for political solutions. For determining the rights and wrongs of interpersonal conflicts feelings of kindness are helpful and feelings of fear and distrust are unhelpful. Tribalism can and does invade personal relationships. I think good parenting includes educating the child to sympathise with and try to understand outsiders.

[Terrapin Station]

At it core, morality is a group's rules of engagement. Consider the capuchin monkey experiment - the insistence on fairness. That's where it starts.

I think it has to start (and essentially be) individuals' feelings about interpersonal behavior. If you don't have that, you can't agree or disagree or negotiate on such things as a group.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, but if that idiosyncratic objection is a moral objection, then it can't be the case that what morality is about is agreed rules of engagement in a group.

The idiosyncratic objection isn't an agreed rule of engagement, yet we're calling it a moral objection. So morality must be about something else. (Which is my view, where I disagree with "morality is about agreed rules of engagement in a group"; groups will have agreed-upon morals, but that agreement isn't what morality is.)

So, if agreement is not what morality is, then what is 'morality', to you, "terrapin station"?

Feelings, preferences about interpersonal behavior, in the vein of permissible versus impermissible conduct, that one considers more significant than etiquette.

[Terrapin Station]

There are obvious moral points of views that everyone does agree on right now in the days of when this is written.

What would you take to be an example of one of those moral points of view that everyone agrees on at present?

You can twist and distort anything anyway you like. But if you are too afraid to define the word 'objective' to you, or just do not want to define what the word 'objective' means to you, then are you willing to define what the word 'normative' means here to you?

I'm trying to ask you questions about your view, as your view.

I've defined subjective/objective many times here already. I can give my definition again, but that's going to be irrelevant to your view.

[GE Morton]

We've been over this a dozen times. Your conception of meaning results in a reduction ad absurdum --- if meanings are "things in people's heads," and "what they assert is determined by how an individual thinks" then verbal transference of information is impossible, because we have no means of determining what is in anyone else's head.

Verbal transference of meaning of any other mental-only phenomena is impossible, yes.

You're again misquoting what I said. I said that information, not "meaning," is transferred. I assume you know what is meant by "information" (perhaps a rash assumption). There is no need to transfer meanings, since other speakers of your language will already know the meanings of the words you're using. If they don't know the meaning of some particular word they'll consult a dictionary.

Meaning is the associative act.

Er, no. "Meaning" is not a verb. It is not an "act" of any kind. Learning a meaning is an associative act. The meaning is that which is learned. Learning a fact is not the fact, learning someone's name is not the name, learning a meaning is not the meaning. When you learn the (denotative) meaning of a word you learn which things-in-the-world that word denotes. Those things are the meanings of that word. What is in your head is knowledge of those meanings.

So first off you're calling the wrong thing meaning. You're doing this because you appeal to common things to say about everything, but those common things to say reflect serious misconceptions--misconceptions that wind up suggesting untenable ontological scenarios.

Oh, my. You're claiming that the common understandings, uses, of common words involve "misconceptions, untenable ontological scenarios"? Are you suggesting we need a new language? HINT: EVERY ontology is a linguistic construct. The only basis for comparing one construct with another is their respective utilities in description and explanation for perceived phenomena. "To be is to be the value of a bound variable" (Quine). What exists is whatever we say exists, as long as that existent has some descriptive or explanatory value. And as I said earlier, virtually every ontology proffered by philosophers over the centuries is metaphysical nonsense, with no explanatory power or descriptive value whatsoever.

What "dog" means to someone is a matter of what's in their head; it's not a behavioral matter.

Sorry, TP, but it is. If Alfie points to a the dog photo when presented with the word "dog," then I know what meaning he attaches to that word. I need no more information. I need know nothing about what is in his head. If he points to the same photo I would point to for that word, then I know that he and I attach the same meaning to it. That behavior is all any of us, including you, knows or can know, about what meanings others attach to words.

You can't seem to grasp the reductio ad absurdum to which your eccentric theory leads. Let me try to outline it one more time.

1. Unless speaker and hearer have a common understanding of the meanings of the words in a proposition, and know that they do, then no information can be exchanged verbally between them. They are speaking different languages.

2. If meanings are "things in people's heads," then a hearer can never know what meanings a speaker attaches to the words he utters, because he can never know what is in that speaker's head.

3. Hence no information can be exchanged verbally between speaker and hearer.

4. But information can be, and is constantly, exchanged between speakers of a common language. So a reductio ad absurdum.

Since 1. is obviously true, 2. must be false.

QED.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, it seems that with the "higher thinking" functions comes with the ability to deceive. You have to love dogs for their honesty. If they don't like you (or another dog) they do not hesitate to let you know.
I eat meat. I'm not going to apologise for it, but if push came to shove I have no doubt that I would protect my own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger.

You may run into bother when GE's political tribe tells you what objective morality is (because he sure as hell isn't). You will be sure to be in contravention.

I wonder if he will dare to be specific about possible "objective morals" before the thread reaches 100 pages? I can't see it happening, personally. Once we move into specifics, the paucity of his claims would become clear. Hence, the hiding.

Mr Morton is a megalomaniac.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, it seems that with the "higher thinking" functions comes with the ability to deceive. You have to love dogs for their honesty. If they don't like you (or another dog) they do not hesitate to let you know.
I eat meat. I'm not going to apologise for it, but if push came to shove I have no doubt that I would protect my own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger.

So, it appears that, to you, it is perfectly alright for your dog to show its hatred of other human beings and animals, but it is never alright for another human being nor animal to show its hatred for or towards your dog, correct?

Yes, I think that about sums it up. Though I would not allow my dog to bark at a vulnerable person.
For example I've had to teach her to trust black people.