Philosophy Discussion Forums

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 5th, 2023, 10:33 pm Thanks for the link, Belindi

Yes, it's easy to define a good beef cow.
And if we're talking about morality, I think it's easy to define good human. A good human is one who doesn't do bad stuff. Now, define bad. Ok, now we're back at moral sentiments. Bad is what most of us think it is. Murder, rape, etcectera. Most of us abhor these acts and those who do such things we call bad. There's nothing hard, much less impossible, about that.

There is only three criteria I can think of for a good beef cow, that it yields good beef, that it breeds true to type, and that it is cost effective. I have only ever heard one criterion for a good human , that he she yields good fruit.

The good beef cow never yields bad fruit when he/she is powerless as usually happens, but the good human fails to yield good fruit when his her intention towards each and every other individual is unkind.

I am much informed by Christianity as you will have gathered, however there are other ethical systems e.g. virtue ethics. Maybe each ethical system should be evaluated by the entire society in which the ethical system is embedded.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2023, 8:48 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 5th, 2023, 10:33 pm Thanks for the link, Belindi

Yes, it's easy to define a good beef cow.
And if we're talking about morality, I think it's easy to define good human. A good human is one who doesn't do bad stuff. Now, define bad. Ok, now we're back at moral sentiments. Bad is what most of us think it is. Murder, rape, etcectera. Most of us abhor these acts and those who do such things we call bad. There's nothing hard, much less impossible, about that.

There is only three criteria I can think of for a good beef cow, that it yields good beef, that it breeds true to type, and that it is cost effective. I have only ever heard one criterion for a good human , that he she yields good fruit.

The good beef cow never yields bad fruit when he/she is powerless as usually happens, but the good human fails to yield good fruit when his her intention towards each and every other individual is unkind.

I am much informed by Christianity as you will have gathered, however there are other ethical systems e.g. virtue ethics. Maybe each ethical system should be evaluated by the entire society in which the ethical system is embedded.

What you are suggesting here is moral relativism - what's right for society A may be different from what's right for society B. That may be ok when we are talking about surface cultural matters like correct dress, food, marriage age, etc. But it doesn't account for the core morality I was speaking about above which is almost universal and found in all societies. Murder, rape, incest,... caring for the young, respect for the our elderly, empathy... These are all part of core morality that is hardwired in most of us. Only in extremely extenuating circumstances, like in war, or in people who have some sort of neurological damage or in some psychopaths whose brains show differences from normal, do humans not feel bound by these core moral sentiments. Which is further evidence that they are hardwired by evolution.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 6:40 am

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 5:31 am is it our own moral "sentiments" that you think we are bound by, or our society's ? You've suggested that they could be different.

Our moral sentiments are binding (in most cases) because they are so strongly felt.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 5th, 2023, 10:33 pm Bad is what most of us think it is. Murder, rape, etcectera. Most of us abhor these acts and those who do such things we call bad.

You seem to be inconsistent here, switching at will between morality based on individual feeling and morality based on social consensus.

Given that there can be conflict between an individual and their society, do you locate morality:
- in the individual's subjective feeling, so that the individual is always right to do what they feel they should, regardless of society ?
- in the (inter-subjective) social consensus, so that the individual is always right to act as society dictates, regardless of their feelings ?
- somewhere external, so that the individual may be right and society may be right, depending on how their views align with something beyond themselves ?
- or in your own infallible wisdom ?

If an example would help, consider slavery. Is slavery morally wrong ?

We learn in history that social attitudes towards slavery have changed, and that individuals such as the Earl of Shaftesbury were instrumental in bringing about this change in the social consensus.

Under the social consensus theory of morality, slavery was morally permissible and then became morally impermissible,

Under a theory based on individual feeling, Shaftesbury did what he felt was right and his opponents did what they felt was right and so everybody acted morally. The question "is slavery wrong" is meaningless; the only meaningful question is whether the act of endorsing or opposing slavery is wrong for some individual at some particular point in time, and the answer depends on their feelings at that point.

Under a theory of objective morality, society made moral progress when it came to realize that slavery was wrong.

Under an idiosyncratic non-theory, I am infallible, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so, regardless of their feelings.

Which is it ?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 5:17 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 6:40 am

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 5:31 am is it our own moral "sentiments" that you think we are bound by, or our society's ? You've suggested that they could be different.

Our moral sentiments are binding (in most cases) because they are so strongly felt.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 5th, 2023, 10:33 pm Bad is what most of us think it is. Murder, rape, etcectera. Most of us abhor these acts and those who do such things we call bad.

You seem to be inconsistent here, switching at will between morality based on individual feeling and morality based on social consensus.

Given that there can be conflict between an individual and their society, do you locate morality:
- in the individual's subjective feeling, so that the individual is always right to do what they feel they should, regardless of society ?
- in the (inter-subjective) social consensus, so that the individual is always right to act as society dictates, regardless of their feelings ?
- somewhere external, so that the individual may be right and society may be right, depending on how their views align with something beyond themselves ?
- or in your own infallible wisdom ?

If an example would help, consider slavery. Is slavery morally wrong ?

We learn in history that social attitudes towards slavery have changed, and that individuals such as the Earl of Shaftesbury were instrumental in bringing about this change in the social consensus.

Under the social consensus theory of morality, slavery was morally permissible and then became morally impermissible,

Under a theory based on individual feeling, Shaftesbury did what he felt was right and his opponents did what they felt was right and so everybody acted morally. The question "is slavery wrong" is meaningless; the only meaningful question is whether the act of endorsing or opposing slavery is wrong for some individual at some particular point in time, and the answer depends on their feelings at that point.

Under a theory of objective morality, society made moral progress when it came to realize that slavery was wrong.

Under an idiosyncratic non-theory, I am infallible, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so, regardless of their feelings.

Which is it ?

I locate morality in both intersubjective feeling and in the individual subjective feelings from which the said intersubjective social consensus (albeit never 100%) ultimately derives. Morality is all about our individual subjective sentiments feeding into the intersubjective and back and forth. These two operate together.

As for slavery, my subjective feeling is that it is not wrong but very bad. It has been permissible in some societies but was not universally accepted even in places like the American South. We cannot be sure, but slavery was unlikely to have been a feature of the small hunter gather groups that formed the basic social context of our forebears. Slavery of the type practiced in Rome or in the American South required that large technologically, militarily and more economically integrated and powerful societies subdue and take captive members of smaller, less powerful groups. Our forebears were too dispersed and technologically undeveloped to engage in slavery of that sort. When we look at more modern hunter gatherer groups, such as the Australian Aborigines (the group with which I am most familiar) nothing like institutionalised slavery existed. Even in powerful, relatively advanced societies like Rome, slavery was questioned as it was in America. People had bad feelings about it. And that, ultimately, was why it ended.

If you read what I have already written, you will see that there are no inconsistencies. Or, if there are, you have not pointed to them.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 6:40 am I agree that our deep-seated moral sentiments are not all we have. For one thing, as I mentioned above, they are usually refined in lots of ways - by teaching by parents, learning at school, advice from friends and family, by cultural influences such as religion, knowledge of the law, etcetera.

I think by “moral intuition" you mean more or less the same as I mean when I refer to our (mostly) evolved “moral sentiments”.
You mentioned empathy, another sentiment or feeling, which I think also has origins deep in our evolutionary history. Evidence for this is that we see empathy as well as “proto-morality” in other animals, too.

I'm glad you brought up the is/ought problem. As far as I know it was Hume who first dealt with it effectively, so I’ll quote him at length,

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author
proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes
observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the
usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with
an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the [utmost] consequence.
For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should
be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seem
s altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely
different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend
it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems
of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the
relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

In short, what Hume is saying here is that you can’t get ought from is. And he is right.

“Ought” is a very interesting word which most of us don’t really feel the need to analyse because we think it’s meaning is obvious. But I think it needs analysing. And I think that once we do analyse it, we may see that it is a word that gets to the heart of what we are doing when we moralize. So I’m going to try to get clear on what “ought” actually means.

What does it mean when someone makes a moral assertion using the word “ought”? Let’s say, for example, that Joe says to Bob,

"You really ought to do X."

To my mind, the only thing “ought” can mean here is that if Bob doesn't do X, Joe, someone else, or perhaps Bob himself, is going to feel bad about it. Similarly, if someone tells Mary,

"It's morally right to do Y",

it must mean that the speaker, or someone else, will approve of Mary doing Y and disapprove if she doesn’t do Y.

If this is right, then it makes morality subjective, that is, based in our subjective sentiments, in our feelings. There’s bad feeling when people don’t do what they, or others, think they are morally bound to do. Our feelings are real enough, and very important - we could hardly operate as a cooperative species without them. But they are subjective and not objective.

If moral assertions are indeed based in our subjective sentiments, in our feelings, as Hume says, then they cannot be assessed as being true or false because they are value judgements. There is no moral-o-meter against which we measure whether a moral assertion in objectively true or false. Moral claims are not truth apt, and they cannot be so because they are based in human feelings which, whilst real, are not the sort of things that can be true or false. Moral sentiments are a bit like aesthetic sentiments in this way – it is not possible to prove objectively that someone is wrong to like a particular work of art or to loath another. Aesthetic feelings are not the type of thing that can be true or false. I think moral values are like that. But that does not mean our moral sentiments are unimportant, arbitrary or disposable, as I’ll explain below.

What is does mean is that, if we discount Divine Command theory, and the idea that our moral feelings track some spooky ideal moral truth (epistemic access to which moral realists cannot explain) then it’s hard to see that one is left with any basis from which to argue for moral realism. But this is not as bad as it might at first seem.

It doesn’t mean that our moral sentiments are not real, that one person’s judgment is as good as another’s or that we are wrong to think that torturing babies for fun is despicable behaviour that should be punished. The fact is that while there can be some disagreement about details (about clothing for example) human moral sentiments are remarkably consistent across pretty much all cultures. Murder, incest, rape, theft, double-dealing, breaking promises, etcetera are all almost universally condemned whilst care for the young, the sick, the elderly, fairness, justice, keeping promises, giving to the poor, etcetera are all almost universally approved of. Why should this be so?

This brings us back to evolution. Can you imagine human societies being able to function if most people did not have strong feelings about torturing babies for fun, or about murder, incest, rape, theft, double-dealing, breaking promises, or about care for the young, the sick, the elderly, fairness, justice, keeping promises, giving to the poor, etcetera. Can you imagine that we’d have gotten through the Pleistocene without feelings about these behaviours. We had to be able to stick together harmoniously in small groups. Can you imagine how difficult it would be if we’d had to think, intellectualize about every singe act, do some sort of calculation, conduct surveys before we did anything. We didn’t need to do any of this because our deep-seated feelings provided quick and easy guidance (in most cases) and even today, we all generally do what our conspecifics will approve of and avoid doing what is going to cause ill feeling towards ourselves or generally cause trouble. We do all this pretty much without thinking. We just feel it right, morally right, to act in certain ways and not others. Evolution instilled these feelings in us because it worked better if we didn’t have to intellectualize about every act and it ensured that most of us acted in ways that fostered cooperation and not conflict within our group.

The fact is that we still rely heavily on our moral feelings that were instilled in us by evolution. They got us through the Pleistocene and they are as useful, indeed, necessary today as they were back then. They are so embedded in out psyches that, for the most part, we cannot jettison them or change them. And we wouldn’t want to. That’s how good a job evolution did. Not perfect. But good enough for the job at hand.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 12:00 am

Belindi wrote: ↑December 6th, 2023, 8:48 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 5th, 2023, 10:33 pm Thanks for the link, Belindi

Yes, it's easy to define a good beef cow.
And if we're talking about morality, I think it's easy to define good human. A good human is one who doesn't do bad stuff. Now, define bad. Ok, now we're back at moral sentiments. Bad is what most of us think it is. Murder, rape, etcectera. Most of us abhor these acts and those who do such things we call bad. There's nothing hard, much less impossible, about that.

There is only three criteria I can think of for a good beef cow, that it yields good beef, that it breeds true to type, and that it is cost effective. I have only ever heard one criterion for a good human , that he she yields good fruit.

The good beef cow never yields bad fruit when he/she is powerless as usually happens, but the good human fails to yield good fruit when his her intention towards each and every other individual is unkind.

I am much informed by Christianity as you will have gathered, however there are other ethical systems e.g. virtue ethics. Maybe each ethical system should be evaluated by the entire society in which the ethical system is embedded.

What you are suggesting here is moral relativism - what's right for society A may be different from what's right for society B. That may be ok when we are talking about surface cultural matters like correct dress, food, marriage age, etc. But it doesn't account for the core morality I was speaking about above which is almost universal and found in all societies. Murder, rape, incest,... caring for the young, respect for the our elderly, empathy... These are all part of core morality that is hardwired in most of us. Only in extremely extenuating circumstances, like in war, or in people who have some sort of neurological damage or in some psychopaths whose brains show differences from normal, do humans not feel bound by these core moral sentiments. Which is further evidence that they are hardwired by evolution.

Your optimism regarding human nature is dangerous; if everyone believed humans were "hard wired" to not commit incest, not murder , not rape, and so forth then we should not need constantly to be on the qui vive to maintain civilised moral codes. We would all be too complaisant.

But that's the thing, not all of us listen to out feelings all the time and a small number of us, for whatever reason, do not experience these feelings. And that is why we have police. Nothing dangerous happening that hasn't always happened. Evolution provided a quick and dirty solution for the problems involved in living in small cooperative groups. We've always police around he edges. And coming to an understanding of evolutionary ethics, and that our morality is based in subjective feelings, does not mean that we'll all turn into cannibalistic serious killers. Our feelings got us through the Pleistocene and the vast majority of us can go on trusting our feelings as we have always done. For the rest, there the police force and the disapprobation of their conspecifics.

Aghhh! I wish there was an edit function here. I did check it. Twice. But I'm old and don't see so well any more.

It should have read:

But that's the thing, not all of us do, or can, listen to our feelings all the time, and a small number of us, for whatever reason, do not experience these feelings. And that is why we have police. Nothing dangerous is happening that hasn't always happened. Evolution provided a quick and dirty solution to the problems involved in living together harmoniously in small cooperative groups. We've always policed around he edges. And coming to an understanding of evolutionary ethics, and realising that our morality is based in subjective feelings, does not mean that we'll all turn into cannibalistic serious killers. Our feelings got us through the Pleistocene and the vast majority of us can go on trusting our feelings as we have always done. For the rest, there are police, prisons and the disapprobation of their conspecifics.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 7th, 2023, 10:33 am Aghhh! I wish there was an edit function here. I did check it. Twice. But I'm old and don't see so well any more.

It should have read:

But that's the thing, not all of us do, or can, listen to our feelings all the time, and a small number of us, for whatever reason, do not experience these feelings. And that is why we have police. Nothing dangerous is happening that hasn't always happened. Evolution provided a quick and dirty solution to the problems involved in living together harmoniously in small cooperative groups. We've always policed around he edges. And coming to an understanding of evolutionary ethics, and realising that our morality is based in subjective feelings, does not mean that we'll all turn into cannibalistic serious killers. Our feelings got us through the Pleistocene and the vast majority of us can go on trusting our feelings as we have always done. For the rest, there are police, prisons and the disapprobation of their conspecifics.

I believe there were long ages when evolution did provide sufficient instinctual behaviours to allow procedure to later ages of mankind when mankind followed orally transmissible morals thence to recorded moral codes. Mankind as he be , can inhibit instinctual behaviour so mankind behaves atrociously ---with regularity. This sounds like Rousseau but I don't intend to evoke the Noble Savage;I for one believe that some cultures are better than others------but I don't believe this because I believe that good instincts are inherited by means of natural selection. Culture is what drives human cognition based behaviours.

I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

We have not been bred by artificial selection like we humans have bred beef cows. There is no way that in the last ten thousand years or so we could have shrugged off our evolved moral sentiments any more than we could have shrugged of our livers or our hair. Are you telling us that you needed to learn that rape or murder, especially within your group, were yuk? Are you saying that you had to be taught that looking after your young, looking out for family and deference to your elders was good? If that is what you are saying, then I don’t believe it. I think you were born knowing all this, you know this in your bones. In non-human animals, care for their young is inborn, and animals closely related to us genetically exhibit empathy to conspecifics, they exhibit proto-morality.

As for culture, saying that one culture is better than another, is a value judgement. I think that your judgement of "better" is based in your subjective sentiments. If it is not so based, then what objective scale are you using? As far I can see, there is no objective meter against which to measure "better" when it comes to culture. It all boils down to feelings which are subjective. We know what we like, and we like what we know.

Humans developed as smallish bands of hunter gatherers who needed to hang together, to behave cooperatively, in order to survive. That is what got us through the Pleistocene. Outsiders were competition for resources on the savanna. And so we evolved to be wary of outsiders, wary of those other mobs of whose presence we were aware, but who were not “us”. This wariness of outsiders has carried over so that, even today, we still see differences, whether they be differences in skin colour, religion, culture, etcetera, as a threat. We know what we like and like what we know. That is part of our evolved human condition.

None of this is to say that, once having understood all this, we cannot change. However, we only began to understand all this with the development of biological science over the last century and a half. Even today, the majority of our species, still blinded by culture and religion, refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth about who we are as a species and how we got here. Yet it is something we would do well to acknowledge.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 10:25 am I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

We have not been bred by artificial selection like we humans have bred beef cows. There is no way that in the last ten thousand years or so we could have shrugged off our evolved moral sentiments any more than we could have shrugged of our livers or our hair. Are you telling us that you needed to learn that rape or murder, especially within your group, were yuk? Are you saying that you had to be taught that looking after your young, looking out for family and deference to your elders was good? If that is what you are saying, then I don’t believe it. I think you were born knowing all this, you know this in your bones. In non-human animals, care for their young is inborn, and animals closely related to us genetically exhibit empathy to conspecifics, they exhibit proto-morality.

As for culture, saying that one culture is better than another, is a value judgement. I think that your judgement of "better" is based in your subjective sentiments. If it is not so based, then what objective scale are you using? As far I can see, there is no objective meter against which to measure "better" when it comes to culture. It all boils down to feelings which are subjective. We know what we like, and we like what we know.

Humans developed as smallish bands of hunter gatherers who needed to hang together, to behave cooperatively, in order to survive. That is what got us through the Pleistocene. Outsiders were competition for resources on the savanna. And so we evolved to be wary of outsiders, wary of those other mobs of whose presence we were aware, but who were not “us”. This wariness of outsiders has carried over so that, even today, we still see differences, whether they be differences in skin colour, religion, culture, etcetera, as a threat. We know what we like and like what we know. That is part of our evolved human condition.

None of this is to say that, once having understood all this, we cannot change. However, we only began to understand all this with the development of biological science over the last century and a half. Even today, the majority of our species, still blinded by culture and religion, refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth about who we are as a species and how we got here. Yet it is something we would do well to acknowledge.

I think plenty people are interested in whether or not a behaviour is nature or nurture. A few of the people I know in real life are interested in gender issues. One main gender issue is that the woman is traditionally believed to be more nurturing than the man. Obviously such cultural beliefs issue in childcare rights, family status relationships, employment and consequent earning power, and religious moral codes.

Re your second last paragraph : I agree my notion of good and and bad cultures is subjective. It's an attitude many people have notably when nationalistic propaganda is a success.

Not "Like beef cows", you say. I agree . We are neither bred by biological natural selection nor by artificial selection like farm animals are bred, nor do we come direct from Heaven or from Hell. In short nobody knows nor can know what is human nature. If we knew the trajectory of human nature we would know right from wrong as objective fact. We would be God.

Re your paragraph about cooperation and competition; I agree,. Darwin incorporated the fact of competition for limited resources into the natural selection equation---struggle to exist + limited resources= biological evolution.
Cooperation is of course a strength which is why we say that man is a cooperative species where men live in societies.
I trust it is apparent that in some measure I am agreeing with you!However at this juncture we need to decide what is the base unit of a human society. Is the basic unit the individual, the family, the tribe, or the species? Is the morality we should aim for good for the individual, the tribe, or the species?

I think we know pretty well which political parties are for individual, or for tribe, or for species, or even for planet.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 10:25 am I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

We have not been bred by artificial selection like we humans have bred beef cows. There is no way that in the last ten thousand years or so we could have shrugged off our evolved moral sentiments any more than we could have shrugged of our livers or our hair. Are you telling us that you needed to learn that rape or murder, especially within your group, were yuk? Are you saying that you had to be taught that looking after your young, looking out for family and deference to your elders was good? If that is what you are saying, then I don’t believe it. I think you were born knowing all this, you know this in your bones. In non-human animals, care for their young is inborn, and animals closely related to us genetically exhibit empathy to conspecifics, they exhibit proto-morality.

As for culture, saying that one culture is better than another, is a value judgement. I think that your judgement of "better" is based in your subjective sentiments. If it is not so based, then what objective scale are you using? As far I can see, there is no objective meter against which to measure "better" when it comes to culture. It all boils down to feelings which are subjective. We know what we like, and we like what we know.

Humans developed as smallish bands of hunter gatherers who needed to hang together, to behave cooperatively, in order to survive. That is what got us through the Pleistocene. Outsiders were competition for resources on the savanna. And so we evolved to be wary of outsiders, wary of those other mobs of whose presence we were aware, but who were not “us”. This wariness of outsiders has carried over so that, even today, we still see differences, whether they be differences in skin colour, religion, culture, etcetera, as a threat. We know what we like and like what we know. That is part of our evolved human condition.

None of this is to say that, once having understood all this, we cannot change. However, we only began to understand all this with the development of biological science over the last century and a half. Even today, the majority of our species, still blinded by culture and religion, refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth about who we are as a species and how we got here. Yet it is something we would do well to acknowledge.

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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 12:59 pm

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 10:25 am I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

We have not been bred by artificial selection like we humans have bred beef cows. There is no way that in the last ten thousand years or so we could have shrugged off our evolved moral sentiments any more than we could have shrugged of our livers or our hair. Are you telling us that you needed to learn that rape or murder, especially within your group, were yuk? Are you saying that you had to be taught that looking after your young, looking out for family and deference to your elders was good? If that is what you are saying, then I don’t believe it. I think you were born knowing all this, you know this in your bones. In non-human animals, care for their young is inborn, and animals closely related to us genetically exhibit empathy to conspecifics, they exhibit proto-morality.

As for culture, saying that one culture is better than another, is a value judgement. I think that your judgement of "better" is based in your subjective sentiments. If it is not so based, then what objective scale are you using? As far I can see, there is no objective meter against which to measure "better" when it comes to culture. It all boils down to feelings which are subjective. We know what we like, and we like what we know.

Humans developed as smallish bands of hunter gatherers who needed to hang together, to behave cooperatively, in order to survive. That is what got us through the Pleistocene. Outsiders were competition for resources on the savanna. And so we evolved to be wary of outsiders, wary of those other mobs of whose presence we were aware, but who were not “us”. This wariness of outsiders has carried over so that, even today, we still see differences, whether they be differences in skin colour, religion, culture, etcetera, as a threat. We know what we like and like what we know. That is part of our evolved human condition.

None of this is to say that, once having understood all this, we cannot change. However, we only began to understand all this with the development of biological science over the last century and a half. Even today, the majority of our species, still blinded by culture and religion, refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth about who we are as a species and how we got here. Yet it is something we would do well to acknowledge.

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.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 1:17 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 12:59 pm 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.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 10:25 am I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

Seems to me that the moral values that you call "core" (e.g. not murdering your neighbour or torturing babies) are those we feel most strongly, because instinct and culture say to us the same thing and reinforce each other.

The more challenging cases are when the individual's moral sense is at odds with that of their culture.

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

E.g. To set free your neighbour's slave who your culture says is legitimately owned ? To keep a slave once your culture has abolished slavery ? To murder a Jewish person in a western culture that gives all people full human rights ? To save a Jewish person from a death camp in a culture that sees them as vermin ?

Or are these all matters of personal taste, which can be described as moral-for-me (I.e. in tune with my own sentiment) but never as right or wrong (because that would reference a moral imperative that is binding on everyone regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter) ?

Good_Egg wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 5:16 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑December 8th, 2023, 10:25 am I agree that cultural evolution can affect surface details. However, our deep, core morality, just like our anatomy and physiology, is in our genes. The universality of human core morality across cultures speaks to this.

Seems to me that the moral values that you call "core" (e.g. not murdering your neighbour or torturing babies) are those we feel most strongly, because instinct and culture say to us the same thing and reinforce each other.

The more challenging cases are when the individual's moral sense is at odds with that of their culture.

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

E.g. To set free your neighbour's slave who your culture says is legitimately owned ? To keep a slave once your culture has abolished slavery ? To murder a Jewish person in a western culture that gives all people full human rights ? To save a Jewish person from a death camp in a culture that sees them as vermin ?

Or are these all matters of personal taste, which can be described as moral-for-me (I.e. in tune with my own sentiment) but never as right or wrong (because that would reference a moral imperative that is binding on everyone regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter) ?

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.

It all comes down to [/b]. Feelings. As mentioned above, slavery has been seen as permissible in some relatively recent societies but was not universally accepted even in places like the American South. We cannot be sure, but slavery was unlikely to have been a feature of the small hunter gather groups that formed the basic social context of our forebears on the savanna and so feelings about it one way or the other would not have arisen. Slavery of the type practiced in Rome or in the American South required that larger, technologically, militarily and economically more integrated and powerful societies were able to subdue and take captive members of smaller, less powerful groups. Our forebears were too dispersed and technologically undeveloped to engage in slavery of that sort. When we look at more modern hunter gatherer groups, such as the Australian Aborigines (the group with which I am most familiar) nothing like institutionalised slavery existed. Even in powerful, relatively advanced societies like Rome, slavery was questioned as it was in America. People had bad feelings about it. And that, ultimately, was why it ended.

Iro your example, there is no objective moral right or wrong. Only subjective feelings. If a person feels strongly enough about slavery to set his neighbour’s slave free he will have done what feels right to him. He was not morally right or wrong to do it. But I personally would applaud his action because I feel slavery is very, very bad.

In social terms, I locate morality in both intersubjective feelings and in the individual subjective feelings from which the intersubjective social consensus (albeit never 100%) ultimately derives. Morality is all about our individual subjective sentiments feeding into the intersubjective and back and forth. These two operate together. The moral zeitgeist within modern societies can change as it did in America. This happened through people convincing others that slavery was bad and then fighting to have slavery ended. There is never 100% agreement because moral sentiments about relatively new institutions will vary, but I doubt there would be more than a small minority in America today who think slavery was a good idea. In the end, slavery is not morally right or wrong. It is not morally anything. But the majority of us feel is bad and so it has been made illegal. Institutionalized slavery was not an issue when our core moral sentiments were developing.