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

[Belindi]

Huh? Humans don't breed randomly. Everyone I know chooses their breeding partners (not necessarily sex partners) with relatively careful thought. And reaction to moral dilemmas is pretty high on the list of selection criteria.

No, it's true we don't breed randomly however our choice of co parent is largely selected by social need such as lack of inherited disease, strong enough physique, physical or social power, family values, tribal values.

Except that what you're labeling "family values" is frequently of a moral nature.

A worthy comment thanks. I intended "family values" in the wider sense of the family as the basic unit, or at least influential unit that institutes both why values and ought values.

[Belindi]

Good-Egg wrote :

In your view can the individual ever be morally right (or morally wrong) to stand against their culture ?

Cultures are not established by nature or anything else deontological such as God. So, as such cultures are not eternal but are in an everlasting state of change. Only by the moral right to actively rebel against a culture and the direction a culture is taking , including your native culture , can the individual help to improve and progress the universal rights of man.

If you claim a specific action abc is right or wrong it stands to reason you must hold it that specific action abc to be right or wrong for all people at all times and places.
The present veto of the US against the UN majority to cease Israel's armed aggression in Gaza is contrary to the rights of man. The US veto is contrary to what the US claims are its moral and political beliefs.

[Good_Egg]

Yes, it all comes down to feelings, to our subjective "moral" sentiments. Moral sentiments, like aesthetic sentiments, are not the sort of things that can be right or wrong. There is no objective measure against which to judge right and wrong. There is no moral-o-meter. Right and wrong are just words we use for actions we approve of and actions we disapprove of respectively.

I think that's clear. And if you stick to it, logically consistent. Words like "right", "wrong", "ought" (in the moral rather than the conditional sense) have no referent other than a person's own feelings.

It's the creed of a psychopath. One whose actions are constrained only by their own feelings. Which may or may not include fear of consequences or empathy for others, at any particular moment.

I had thought you were going somewhere else with this. Some notion that feelings which can be easily explained by evolutionary thinking or by alignment with culture are somehow more valid or more justified than feelings that are more idiosyncratic, are harder to explain. But that would imply some objective moral truth, which you're explicitly denying.

Ironic that you think psychopaths should be locked up, given that you so totally agree with them....

[Lagayascienza]

This is completely incorrect.

I have never said I agree with psychopaths or with anyone else. I think those psychopaths who are dangerous must be locked up where they can do no harm. Most people think this, too. Don't you?

I think you that have either have not been reading closely what I have been saying, or that you have totally misunderstood what I have said. Those are two charitable readings of your post above. A less uncharitable reading is that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying because you do not like what I am saying.

I am fine with whichever is the case.

[Belindi]

Yes, it all comes down to feelings, to our subjective "moral" sentiments. Moral sentiments, like aesthetic sentiments, are not the sort of things that can be right or wrong. There is no objective measure against which to judge right and wrong. There is no moral-o-meter. Right and wrong are just words we use for actions we approve of and actions we disapprove of respectively.

I think that's clear. And if you stick to it, logically consistent. Words like "right", "wrong", "ought" (in the moral rather than the conditional sense) have no referent other than a person's own feelings.

It's the creed of a psychopath. One whose actions are constrained only by their own feelings. Which may or may not include fear of consequences or empathy for others, at any particular moment.

I had thought you were going somewhere else with this. Some notion that feelings which can be easily explained by evolutionary thinking or by alignment with culture are somehow more valid or more justified than feelings that are more idiosyncratic, are harder to explain. But that would imply some objective moral truth, which you're explicitly denying.

Ironic that you think psychopaths should be locked up, given that you so totally agree with them....

I suggest Good Egg edits his/hers to " Its a creed that is all-inclusive ". All living creatures have natural feelings, feelings which originate in both nature and nurture. The biological component of feelings is properly called emotions.
No living creature can stay alive without sufficient emotional functions, all of which are objectively detectable. Apart from mystical hermits, all men's
cognitive functions either accord with some culture or other, or else the individual is some sort of sociopath.

I have come to agree with Gay Scienza that ordinary human kindness is biologically emotional. Those who seem to lack any ordinary human kindness are traumatised or deficient----- perhaps slow learners. What does my theory as I tell it say about wars ----is any war a just war?

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, it all comes down to feelings, to our subjective "moral" sentiments. Moral sentiments, like aesthetic sentiments, are not the sort of things that can be right or wrong. There is no objective measure against which to judge right and wrong. There is no moral-o-meter. Right and wrong are just words we use for actions we approve of and actions we disapprove of respectively.

I think that's clear. And if you stick to it, logically consistent. Words like "right", "wrong", "ought" (in the moral rather than the conditional sense) have no referent other than a person's own feelings.

It's the creed of a psychopath. One whose actions are constrained only by their own feelings. Which may or may not include fear of consequences or empathy for others, at any particular moment.

I had thought you were going somewhere else with this. Some notion that feelings which can be easily explained by evolutionary thinking or by alignment with culture are somehow more valid or more justified than feelings that are more idiosyncratic, are harder to explain. But that would imply some objective moral truth, which you're explicitly denying.

Ironic that you think psychopaths should be locked up, given that you so totally agree with them....

I suggest Good Egg edits his/hers to " Its a creed that is all-inclusive ". All living creatures have natural feelings, feelings which originate in both nature and nurture. The biological component of feelings is properly called emotions.
No living creature can stay alive without sufficient emotional functions, all of which are objectively detectable.

Yes, I think that's right. Even the lowliest of animals, and even plants show natural "behaviours" that can perhaps be read as subjective preferences.

I have come to agree with Gay Scienza that ordinary human kindness is biologically emotional. Those who seem to lack any ordinary human kindness are traumatised or deficient----- perhaps slow learners. What does my theory as I tell it say about wars ----is any war a just war?

I think war is a highly extenuating circumstance. When it comes down to kill-or-be-killed, our evolved instinct for self-preservation kicks in to override our natural abhorrence of killing. This would have been as true 100,000 years ago out on the savanna when groups of our forebears fought with spears and clubs as it is today with our high tech weapons.

As for a just war. I'm not sure. It depends on what we mean by justice. And I guess that would depend on who started the war and why. I don't think there is any INjustice in defending your group if it is threatened by another group who wants to enslave you or which is motivated solely by the benefits they might accrue to them by plundering and pillaging your group or from depriving your group of territory it has traditionally used for its sustenance. That sort of thing brings forth evolved sentiments of self-preservation and righteous anger at injustice. And understandably so. We want our genes to be launched into the future just like the other mob and well fight others whose aggression may prevent us from so launching them.

[Belindi]

Yes, it all comes down to feelings, to our subjective "moral" sentiments. Moral sentiments, like aesthetic sentiments, are not the sort of things that can be right or wrong. There is no objective measure against which to judge right and wrong. There is no moral-o-meter. Right and wrong are just words we use for actions we approve of and actions we disapprove of respectively.

I think that's clear. And if you stick to it, logically consistent. Words like "right", "wrong", "ought" (in the moral rather than the conditional sense) have no referent other than a person's own feelings.

It's the creed of a psychopath. One whose actions are constrained only by their own feelings. Which may or may not include fear of consequences or empathy for others, at any particular moment.

I had thought you were going somewhere else with this. Some notion that feelings which can be easily explained by evolutionary thinking or by alignment with culture are somehow more valid or more justified than feelings that are more idiosyncratic, are harder to explain. But that would imply some objective moral truth, which you're explicitly denying.

Ironic that you think psychopaths should be locked up, given that you so totally agree with them....

I suggest Good Egg edits his/hers to " Its a creed that is all-inclusive ". All living creatures have natural feelings, feelings which originate in both nature and nurture. The biological component of feelings is properly called emotions.
No living creature can stay alive without sufficient emotional functions, all of which are objectively detectable.

Yes, I think that's right. Even the lowliest of animals, and even plants show natural "behaviours" that can perhaps be read as subjective preferences.

I have come to agree with Gay Scienza that ordinary human kindness is biologically emotional. Those who seem to lack any ordinary human kindness are traumatised or deficient----- perhaps slow learners. What does my theory as I tell it say about wars ----is any war a just war?

I think war is a highly extenuating circumstance. When it comes down to kill-or-be-killed, our evolved instinct for self-preservation kicks in to override our natural abhorrence of killing. This would have been as true 100,000 years ago out on the savanna when groups of our forebears fought with spears and clubs as it is today with our high tech weapons.

As for a just war. I'm not sure. It depends on what we mean by justice. And I guess that would depend on who started the war and why. I don't think there is any INjustice in defending your group if it is threatened by another group who wants to enslave you or which is motivated solely by the benefits they might accrue to them by plundering and pillaging your group or from depriving your group of territory it has traditionally used for its sustenance. That sort of thing brings forth evolved sentiments of self-preservation and righteous anger at injustice. And understandably so. We want our genes to be launched into the future just like the other mob and well fight others whose aggression may prevent us from so launching them.

I believe that just war is possible.*** This topic has been argued and enshrined in international law, which embraces detailed rules about what is and what is not permissible. While objective morality is impossible, what La Gay Scienza writes is true and reason has been called upon to be the final judge of practical right and wrong. Fact:- we are historical men who are living now in the age of reason, an age that is defined by the scientific enlightenment.

*** E.g. the war against Nazism was a just war .Even if the allies had been defeated the war against Nazism per se was a just war. If Hitler's Nazism been self contained in Germany it would not have been justifiable to make war with Germany.

[Pattern-chaser]

Circumstances alter morals. If your Granny is terminally ill at the end of her life and pleading with you to delver her from her intractable suffering you would do good to kill Granny.

The politics of voluntary euthanasia or doctor-assisted dying are best when emotions are governed by reason.

The politics of voluntary euthanasia or doctor-assisted dying are best when emotions are complemented and balanced by reason?

[Belindi]

Circumstances alter morals. If your Granny is terminally ill at the end of her life and pleading with you to delver her from her intractable suffering you would do good to kill Granny.

The politics of voluntary euthanasia or doctor-assisted dying are best when emotions are governed by reason.

The politics of voluntary euthanasia or doctor-assisted dying are best when emotions are complemented and balanced by reason?

I understand that all states that permit doctor-assisted dying have strict rules for protecting vulnerable individuals against predation. Rule makers, while basing their legislature on civilised feelings such as kindness , should also use reason so that their kind intentions are maximised in the execution of laws. Reason should fine- tune civilised feelings.

Thus, if the culture insists on e.g. female circumcision, FE should be outlawed unless outlawing FE harms the individual more than it helps the individual.
My argument depends on the premiss that the individual is the moral unit: the society and its culture is not the moral unit.

[Good_Egg]

*** E.g. the war against Nazism was a just war

I don't disagree.

Just notice that you're putting this forward as a truth. That others can agree with or not by reason.

Rather than as an idiosyncratic feeling that has no value outside of your own skill.

[Good_Egg]

Sorry, should read "skull". Wretched autocorrect....

[Sculptor1]

*** E.g. the war against Nazism was a just war

I don't disagree.

Just notice that you're putting this forward as a truth. That others can agree with or not by reason.

Rather than as an idiosyncratic feeling that has no value outside of your own skill.

It is instructive to reflect that but for the contingencies of history the ideology of Nazism could well have won through and their own version of what they considered to be "objective morality" would have become the norm.
And all justified with reason.
Quo Vadis Objective Morality?
They had their reasons.
Nazism did not fail because it was wrong.

[Good_Egg]

I have never said I agree with psychopaths or with anyone else. I think those psychopaths who are dangerous must be locked up where they can do no harm.

True, you haven't acknowledged that you agree with psychopaths. Your statement was to the effect that nothing binds you morally except your feelings. Which, I'm suggesting, is the position taken by every psychopath.

Seems to me that your "must" sentence is expressing an "ought".

Whereas, if you were true to your stated position you could say no more than "It would gratify my feelings to see psychopaths locked up where they can do no harm, but your feelings may vary".

You are denying that there is any basis for moral reasoning, and then expecting us to take your ought-statements as the product of mature and informed reason rather than your momentary whim.

[Lagayascienza]

I have never said I agree with psychopaths or with anyone else. I think those psychopaths who are dangerous must be locked up where they can do no harm.

True, you haven't acknowledged that you agree with psychopaths. Your statement was to the effect that nothing binds you morally except your feelings. Which, I'm suggesting, is the position taken by every psychopath.

Yes, psychopaths feel differently about things than others. That much is obvious. So what? If they didn't feel differently to the rest of us they wouldn't do things we abhor. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Seems to me that your "must" sentence is expressing an "ought".

Whereas, if you were true to your stated position you could say no more than "It would gratify my feelings to see psychopaths locked up where they can do no harm, but your feelings may vary".

You are denying that there is any basis for moral reasoning, and then expecting us to take your ought-statements as the product of mature and informed reason rather than your momentary whim.

No. You have not understood. There are different sorts of oughts.

There are instrumental oughts such as: If you want your car to run well you ought to get it serviced regularly.
There are prudential oughts such as: You ought to be careful who you give your phone number to or. (very similar to the instrumental ought)
And then there are moral oughts such as: You ought not steal, rape, murder etc.

We ought to lock dangerous psychopaths up in the prudential sense. So we are safe from them. This is not a moral ought.

There are no inconsistencies in what I have said. Or if there are, you have not pointed to them.

[Lagayascienza]

You are denying that there is any basis for moral reasoning...

There is a very good basis for moral reasoning. That basis is in our feelings, our moral sentiments. These are very important to us - things matter to us. I can't see any other basis for moral reasoning. In what would you like to base your moral reasoning instead?