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

[snt]

morality concerns an eternal quest into good (a quest for moral truths)

Most humans want to be happy, most humans seek the "good". Most humans also have some empathy, so what is good for them is often also good for others.

Unfortunately this doesn't necessarily mean that there is also a fundamental goodness to the world. Maybe there is only the human quest for the good.

Morality in my opinion is about the potential for moral consideration (an intellectual capacity).

Negligence, laziness and barbarianism are possible. An asteroid can strike earth. A moral life is not a given life. A moral life involves an eternal effort on behalf of 'good'. A moral life, according many wise people, requires that one first gives before one receives.

When it is considered that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown to be the case (e.g. Emmanuel Levinas that I cited before), it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond. In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. A cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans will transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings.

The citations of business science research in my previous reply show that the discovery of the power of a moral culture is a recent one (cutting edge in business science).

The trend in leadership today is a focus on authenticity and a moral compass. The number one business book of recent years, by an author that is considered the new father of leadership, is named 'True North' and is about a moral compass.

I recently listened to a podcast with as guest Lisa Monaco, a former Counterterrorism Advisor of President Barack Obama. She specifically addresses the significance of a sound moral compass and hints that it might involve more than social and cultural instincts (in the podcast she mentioned a 'sixth sense').

Podcast: https://listennotes.com/podcasts/the-le ... li-5dvNUT/

It is interesting to notice that people who manage other people often seem to hold a special interest in morality. When one is to make choices on behalf of other people as part of an organization, morality is essentially what will determine quality in the choices that are made. So the current cultural evolution in business to 'good' companies and a moral culture is something with a long history.

From this perspective, despite that the modern technological society intends to break free from morality (i.e. the idea "A God is dead world in which science tells us our moral intuitions are simply a happenstance of evolutionary utility" that Gertie mentioned recently), there seems to be a solid ground and opportunity for morality to revive in the near future.

My suggestion would be to help secure interest for morality in a more robust sense beyond the scope of human ego. It wouldn't be just intended to be kind to other conscious beings, morality can be seen as a form of long-term intelligence that could help stave off disaster and secure progress in ways that could prove to be vital. Morality can be meaningful and serving it can provide the highest possible fulfilment in life - a (feeling of) fulfilment of the purpose of life which translates into happiness and health.

When a moral culture is set in motion, like a domino effect, it will prevent evil fundamentally.

[Atla]

morality concerns an eternal quest into good (a quest for moral truths)

Most humans want to be happy, most humans seek the "good". Most humans also have some empathy, so what is good for them is often also good for others.

Unfortunately this doesn't necessarily mean that there is also a fundamental goodness to the world. Maybe there is only the human quest for the good.

Morality in my opinion is about the potential for moral consideration (an intellectual capacity).

Negligence, laziness and barbarianism are possible. An asteroid can strike earth. A moral life is not a given life. A moral life involves an eternal effort on behalf of 'good'. A moral life, according many wise people, requires that one first gives before one receives.

When it is considered that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown to be the case (e.g. Emmanuel Levinas that I cited before), it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond. In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. A cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans will transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings.

The citations of business science research in my previous reply show that the discovery of the power of a moral culture is a recent one (cutting edge in business science).

The trend in leadership today is a focus on authenticity and a moral compass. The number one business book of recent years, by an author that is considered the new father of leadership, is named 'True North' and is about a moral compass.

I recently listened to a podcast with as guest Lisa Monaco, a former Counterterrorism Advisor of President Barack Obama. She specifically addresses the significance of a sound moral compass and hints that it might involve more than social and cultural instincts (in the podcast she mentioned a 'sixth sense').

Podcast: https://listennotes.com/podcasts/the-le ... li-5dvNUT/

It is interesting to notice that people who manage other people often seem to hold a special interest in morality. When one is to make choices on behalf of other people as part of an organization, morality is essentially what will determine quality in the choices that are made. So the current cultural evolution in business to 'good' companies and a moral culture is something with a long history.

From this perspective, despite that the modern technological society intends to break free from morality (i.e. the idea "A God is dead world in which science tells us our moral intuitions are simply a happenstance of evolutionary utility" that @Gertie mentioned recently), there seems to be a solid ground and opportunity for morality to revive in the near future.

My suggestion would be to help secure interest for morality in a more robust sense beyond the scope of human ego. It wouldn't be just intended to be kind to other conscious beings, morality can be seen as a form of long-term intelligence that could help stave off disaster and secure progress in ways that could prove to be vital. Morality can be meaningful and serving it can provide the highest possible fulfilment in life - a (feeling of) fulfilment of the purpose of life which translates into happiness and health.

When a moral culture is set in motion, like a domino effect, it will prevent evil fundamentally.

I agree of course about the need for a moral culture, but it has not been shown that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, why would it?

I didn't find the Levinas quote, I only found a weird randomness quote. Yes of course there is no randomness in the known world (with one possible exception which I personally don't believe in). Which of course doesn't mean that randomness isn't possible, and neither does it mean that something is needed to prevent randomness. It just means that the world is non-random.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is the origin of moral feelings or intuition? Can it be said that those feeling originate from reason? If not, then...

...emotion, or something similar or related? What else?

Yes, but the meaning of that emotion? Can it stem from (or be explained by) reason alone?

It is the 'meaning' of that emotion that forms the basis. If it cannot be explained by reason, then...

...perhaps there is no reason, no explanation? Perhaps it's one of those things that 'just is'?

If emotion has a meaning, it seems that we agree it does not emerge from reason. But does/must everything have a reason? And we could also ask, in the same vein, does/must everything have a meaning? I do not deny reason or meaning, I only question whether they always apply to every situation?

Then again, perhaps emotion is an external indicator to one's internal state? Perhaps it's just a sort of flag, and that's all there is to it?

Your ceaseless quest for origin, meaning, reason, and the like - what is the point? What is your purpose? Do you seek to confirm the existence of God, behind everything, as the Ultimate Cause, Reason and Meaning? Or do you have another reason?

[Pattern-chaser]

While it may be OK from a personal perspective to simply say "I just feel it (moral intuition)", when it concerns philosophy, one will be required to answer the question 'why'.

"Why?" questions can only be answered if their context is wholly understood. When their contexts are wholly understood, the answer flows directly from that understanding. Without it, there is no answer, there can be no answer.

What flows from this is that only the most trivial "why?" questions can be answered (by us humans). This is mostly the questions that have their answers defined in advance; it's just a matter of finding and quoting that definition. "Why is 2 + 2 = 4?" is one such question. If we understand arithmetic, and the set- and number-theory that supports it, then the answer to the question is simple. But if the question is "why is there evil in the world?", there is no satisfactory answer that a human can give.

We can speculate, though, and we do, often at great length. This is part of what philosophers do, isn't it? But we (philosophers) are not "required" to answer "why?" questions, although sometimes we try anyway (by speculating, of course).

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you understand the idea of the relevance of an 'other world' that from a philosophical perspective demands exploration. A world that precedes the repeatable world?

I am wondering if your obsession with precession, if I may call it that, is obscuring the merit of the questions you ask? The questions seem interesting, but I have no sooner started to consider them when you disrupt proceedings with another claim concerning precession.

What is it about precession that is so overwhelmingly significant that you mention it so often? What is the merit, reason, or purpose of something coming before everything else?

[snt]

Morality in my opinion is about the potential for moral consideration (an intellectual capacity).
...
When a moral culture is set in motion, like a domino effect, it will prevent evil fundamentally.

I agree of course about the need for a moral culture, but it has not been shown that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, why would it?

I didn't find the Levinas quote, I only found a weird randomness quote. Yes of course there is no randomness in the known world (with one possible exception which I personally don't believe in). Which of course doesn't mean that randomness isn't possible, and neither does it mean that something is needed to prevent randomness. It just means that the world is non-random.

The French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said (a paper).

A 'good' that would precede reality (i.e. 'the Universe') cannot be discovered in the Said, however, philosophical reasoning can make a case for it's plausibility.

Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work):

By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

In the film Absent God (1:06:22) Levinas says the following:

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted to explore the concept in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

An expert on the book mentioned the following: "Logic has its place in human affairs, but it isn’t everything. There is a limit to what we can understand through rationality and reasoning. To transcend that limit, we need to fully engage the intuition."

As Pattern-chaser indicated, Tao is interpretative as 'the way' but that is merely so because the book Tao Te Ching seeks relevance within a certain human context (an ancient context at that). One might ask: a way from and to what? That would be 'good' since whatever it is, it cannot be named and in the same time, it must be good for it being able to be referenced as THE way.

It concerns philosophical plausibility of a 'good' that precedes reality. Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

[Atla]

The French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas[/url] addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said (a paper).

A 'good' that would precede reality (i.e. 'the Universe') cannot be discovered in the Said, however, philosophical reasoning can make a case for it's plausibility.

Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work):

By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

In the film Absent God(1:06:22) Levinas says the following:

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

Chinese philosopher (Lao Tzu) has attempted to explore the concept in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

An expert on the book mentioned the following: "Logic has its place in human affairs, but it isn’t everything. There is a limit to what we can understand through rationality and reasoning. To transcend that limit, we need to fully engage the intuition."

As @Pattern-chaser indicated, Tao is interpretative as 'the way' but that is merely so because the book Tao Te Ching seeks relevance within a certain human context (an ancient context at that). One might ask: a way from and to what? That would be 'good' since whatever it is, it cannot be named and in the same time, it must be good for it being able to be referenced as THE way.

It concerns philosophical plausibility of a 'good' that precedes reality. Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

As far as I understand, Taoism is also a form of nondualism, and the way that in fact can't be told and in fact can't be named, is the nondual state of consciousness.

But that has nothing to do with a "good" preceeding the world, actually, nondualism and "preceeding" are mutually exclusive. It also has nothing to do with inherent logic or morality or good or meaning etc., that one can encounter when looking back deeply into one's own consciousness. Most Eastern philosophies seem to believe in such encounters, they seem to fall for these illusions, which distort their nondualism. Levinas also seems to have fallen into this trap.

But of course how can one disprove such claims, when they say that "you have to experience these things for yourself"?

[Pattern-chaser]

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted to explore the concept in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

An expert on the book mentioned the following: "Logic has its place in human affairs, but it isn’t everything. There is a limit to what we can understand through rationality and reasoning. To transcend that limit, we need to fully engage the intuition."

As @Pattern-chaser indicated, Tao is interpretative as 'the way' but that is merely so because the book Tao Te Ching seeks relevance within a certain human context (an ancient context at that). One might ask: a way from and to what? That would be 'good' since whatever it is, it cannot be named and in the same time, it must be good for it being able to be referenced as THE way.

It concerns philosophical plausibility of a 'good' that precedes reality. Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

Once again, you seek to distort Daoism to suit your needs, apparently with little understanding of it. It isn't that the Tao cannot be "named", it's that it cannot be described using words. As Rene Magritte said: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - this is not a pipe, it's a picture (a "representation") of a pipe. I think this simple truth is not too difficult to apprehend?

The Tao is The Way, not "a way". The book said it that way because that's the meaning the author intended, not because we misunderstand the words of a long-dead author in our modern times. There is no philosophical necessity that I can see that would require that The Way is "good"; it is what it is, and that is what cannot be described in words.

And so we return to your obsession with precession. <sigh>

[Sculptor1]

The question is prima facie absurd.
Of course not.
Morality is all about distinctions between good and bad actions.
Can a man do good things, and ought he to not do bad things?
On an eternal scale this is meaningless, since humans come to the game rather late in the history of the universe, and likely shall depart long before its end.
Humans can barely decide on their own terms what is good and what is bad, and you have to ask what or whose other terms are there. For this question to have eternal answers, to who ought such questions even apply.
Who decides?
Hobbes pretty much summed up the entire moral question with one simple paraphrase.
Good is that which pleaseth man, evil is that which pleaseth him not.

Now, of you really think that you can come up with a simple statement of moral rightness that is unequivocally good or evil then let's hear it.
Most people simply chose a definition such as murder is bad. But this is just a circular argument; murder is defined as wrong killing, but says nothing about whether killing is bad or not.

[snt]

While it may be OK from a personal perspective to simply say "I just feel it (moral intuition)", when it concerns philosophy, one will be required to answer the question 'why'.

"Why?" questions can only be answered if their context is wholly understood. When their contexts are wholly understood, the answer flows directly from that understanding. Without it, there is no answer, there can be no answer.

I would not agree with that. When it concerns philosophy, it concerns the seeking of answers to fundamental questions about aspects that may precede the potential for any experience, which could include moral intuitions/feelings.

To answer a why question in this case therefore, it would concern an explanation for the fundamental potential of a certain experience, such as moral intuitions/feelings, without having the ability of full understanding of a concrete in-the-moment why of an individual person.

What flows from this is that only the most trivial "why?" questions can be answered (by us humans). This is mostly the questions that have their answers defined in advance; it's just a matter of finding and quoting that definition. "Why is 2 + 2 = 4?" is one such question. If we understand arithmetic, and the set- and number-theory that supports it, then the answer to the question is simple. But if the question is "why is there evil in the world?", there is no satisfactory answer that a human can give.

We can speculate, though, and we do, often at great length. This is part of what philosophers do, isn't it? But we (philosophers) are not "required" to answer "why?" questions, although sometimes we try anyway (by speculating, of course).

I do not agree that an answer is not possible. I believe that fundamental philosophy, when it achieves correctness, can explain aspects such as evil in the right way.

The difficulty arises in the fact that reason and logic may not be sufficient to provide an explanation so any wisdom on that regard cannot be 'written down' in a book. It would involve different methods to achieve wisdom about aspects in some cases. At question then might be: how can the value of that wisdom be translated into value for humanity? That would require motivation.

[snt]

Do you understand the idea of the relevance of an 'other world' that from a philosophical perspective demands exploration. A world that precedes the repeatable world?

I am wondering if your obsession with precession, if I may call it that, is obscuring the merit of the questions you ask? The questions seem interesting, but I have no sooner started to consider them when you disrupt proceedings with another claim concerning precession.

What is it about precession that is so overwhelmingly significant that you mention it so often? What is the merit, reason, or purpose of something coming before everything else?

I mentioned the following as motivation for the focus on the aspect that 'precedes' the repeatable world.

"When it is considered that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown to be the case (e.g. Emmanuel Levinas that I cited before), it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond (a foundation for a moral culture). In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. A cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans will transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings."

It provides a stable and efficient ground for morality. A ground that in my opinion is just a correct ground for morality and not a theorized ground in an attempt to serve morality.

BTW: what precedes the repeatable world (i.e. 'physical reality' or subjective experience) on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within subjective experience. It would therefore be equally correct to seek something that lays beyond the repeatable world.

Truth and good would be concepts that from within a subjective human perspective would lay beyond the human, forever out of reach but still worth pursuing for the 'value' that is the result of that pursuit. From a purely philosophical perspective however, thus reaching outside of a subjective experience, that same truth and good would precede the human.

This is my personal interest in the aspect that precedes human nature. That 'other' world may hold much more value than humans can imagine today. Philosophical exploration therefore could be of vital importance in my opinion.

[snt]

Yes, but the meaning of that emotion? Can it stem from (or be explained by) reason alone?

It is the 'meaning' of that emotion that forms the basis. If it cannot be explained by reason, then...

...perhaps there is no reason, no explanation? Perhaps it's one of those things that 'just is'?

If emotion has a meaning, it seems that we agree it does not emerge from reason. But does/must everything have a reason? And we could also ask, in the same vein, does/must everything have a meaning? I do not deny reason or meaning, I only question whether they always apply to every situation?

Then again, perhaps emotion is an external indicator to one's internal state? Perhaps it's just a sort of flag, and that's all there is to it?

It would be to easy to argue that something 'just is'. It would be similar to saying 'God did it'. When it concerns philosophy one should not dodge the question 'why'. It would concern a fundamental why, thus not the why of an individual emotion but the why of certain emotions as a phenomenon.

In the case of moral intuition/feelings, Astro Cat argued that they are not like preferences.

It is therefore at question (the original question): Can it be said that those (moral) feeling originate from reason? If not, then...

What else than reason - that which encapsulate anything of which it can be said that has the nature Being - that it is/be - can explain the origin of such feelings?

One is to look inside conscious experience to find a ground, which as it was established isn't reason - the manifested form of conscious experience or a 'subjective experience' - but something that precedes that experience.

One would reach a door to a different world. A world beyond logic and knowledge and thus a world that precedes logic and knowledge from a fundamental philosophy perspective that attempts to perceive/explore that aspect outside the scope of subjective experience. (beyond and precede would refer to the same aspect relative to - from within or from outside - subjective experience)

A door to 'beyond logic and knowledge'
mystical-door-beyond-knowledge.jpg (20.73 KiB) Viewed 919 times

Your ceaseless quest for origin, meaning, reason, and the like - what is the point? What is your purpose? Do you seek to confirm the existence of God, behind everything, as the Ultimate Cause, Reason and Meaning? Or do you have another reason?

I described my motivation in my previous post. That 'aspect' provides a source for human performance, for talent and for morality, which in my opinion can be seen as a long term intellectual light 'from the inside out' that could be vital for securing long term prosperity. I see morality not as something that makes one and other be kind and good to each other, but as something of vital importance for intellectual progress.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that fundamental philosophy, when it achieves correctness, can explain aspects such as evil in the right way.

Go on, then. Explain evil, in the philosophical way that you claim is possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am wondering if your obsession with precession, if I may call it that, is obscuring the merit of the questions you ask? The questions seem interesting, but I have no sooner started to consider them when you disrupt proceedings with another claim concerning precession.

What is it about precession that is so overwhelmingly significant that you mention it so often? What is the merit, reason, or purpose of something coming before everything else?

I mentioned the following as motivation for the focus on the aspect that 'precedes' the repeatable world.

"When it is considered that 'good' necessarily precedes human nature, which many profound philosophers have shown to be the case (e.g. Emmanuel Levinas that I cited before), it is possible to overcome the hurdle of subjective laziness and drive people principally to consider the good of others and beyond (a foundation for a moral culture). In such a situation, moral consideration would become a quality that can be demanded in the face of dignity. A cultural demand can be a very strong demand. Humans will transform almost automatically into ever improving moral beings."

I think it might be helpful if you could first justify your assertion that there really is an "aspect" that precedes the "repeatable world", by saying what that aspect is, and explaining how it can/could "precede" the "repeatable world". And, while you're at it, please confirm that by "repeatable world", you mean to refer to what everyone else calls "reality"?

[Gertie]

snt

I take a different approach. Trying to address morality (the concept of right and wrong and prescriptive oughts) in terms of objective facts or falsifiable truths seems to me to be a category error. But morality carries different inferences to mere matters of subjective taste too.

So I think we have to think about what morality is and what it's for, on its own terms. What, if anything, makes something right or wrong, what could justify oughts? If we exclude gods, and take as read that there are evolutionary reasons for human 'moral intuitions' and environmental/cultural reasons for how those intuitions play out in different scenarios - what is left? Why would morality still matter or be justifiable?

I think what makes morality still matter and have value is the fact that experiencing subjects have a quality of life which matters to us (Goldstein calls it 'the mattering instinct'). The qualiative nature of conscious experience means there is 'something it is like' to be a human or cow or mouse (probably), which subjects value. That experience can be awful or wonderful and everything in between. Physical pain, emotional distress, not having the resources to flourish, these things matter.

Hence we ought to treat each other with consideration which recognises this mattering, try to be kind rather than cruel, be prepared to help sometimes even at a cost to ourselves.

You could say why should your welfare matter to me, simply abandon the idea of morality. But even then there are plenty of selfish/practical reasons to be kind and cooperative towards people in your life who you might in turn need to rely on, and to participate in a society which values its members' wellbeing.

One way or the other morality involves value, no matter how you try to turn it (e.g. the idea 'mattering instinct').

I do not believe that it is wise to rely on human imagination when it concerns a philosophically addressing of the fundamental nature (and meaning) of morality. The reason is that when it comes down to it, moral choices can at most be subjective and thus are thrown out of the window straight away in diverse situations.

The "what it is like to be" argument, while it may work well from certain (in my opinion limited) perspectives to improve moral behaviour, isn't something that can serve morality in the best way since it lacks meaning (a 'why' to perform in such or such way, or to take an extreme example, why to give up one's own life for it which morality is evidently able to drive people to do in acts of selflessness).


The concept mattering can only be addressed a posteriori, e.g. as an ethical notion that has been determined somehow.

No, the argument is that the having of qualiative conscious experience gives you a stake in what happens to you (unlike a rock or carrot or toaster). Interests in the state of affairs. Interests provide the justification for oughts, bridge the Is-Ought gap.

There is of course the experience in the moment and imagination on behalf of others, but still I believe that morality can and should be about something else than mere consideration of experience (in others).

That's a common feeling, but the implication of some mind independant morality needs justification which will inevitably be highly speculative won't it? And we have a naturalistic, evolutionary account for our caring/social pre-dispositions.

In my opinion, the fundamental nature of morality has certain implications that demand respect in order to (in potential) optimally serve the purpose of life. That demand of respect is what provides the ground for concepts such as altruistic behaviour. It would also provide meaning and purpose to altruism, i.e. a 'greater good' that when serving as an individual, provides the highest fulfilment possible, which translates into happiness and health.

To say morality demands respect is to attribute attitude to a concept (morality) - so that would need unpacking. If what you're saying amounts to the ought/prescriptive nature of morality, then that's a dilemma which which the notion of ''interests'' I mentioned addresses. Without interests in the state of affairs, it doesn't matter what happens.

You see morality's role as to serve the 'purpose of life', I'd take that a step further and say what is it about life which merits moral consideration? And that is the conscious experience of being a subject. So carrots and daffodils have no stake in what happens to them, it doesn't matter to them, you can't hurt a daffodil any more than you can hurt a rock or a toaster. Where-as humans, cows and mice have a stake in the state of affairs, because you can cause them harm or help them flourish, and it matters to them. If you kill them they lose something of value, the ability to experience life.