Does Morality Presuppose Good and Evil?

[Tobermory]

Funny, I always used to wonder about these things as a very little girl: Is my green the same as your green? My mother thought I was just being silly, of course.

But it's also funny that I wonder about them still at the age that I am.

 

[RandFan]

Funny, I always used to wonder about these things as a very little girl: Is my green the same as your green? My mother thought I was just being silly, of course.

But it's also funny that I wonder about them still at the age that I am.

This was my first lesson to my kids about critical thinking and skepticism. How do we know that what we see (percieve) is the same for everyone. It took a bit to get the idea across but once I did they were fascinated. BTW, discussing color blindness is a good way to make the point.

It's a very good question. It turns out that there is some good science to suppose why we do but we can't absolutely prove that we do.

 

[Z]

In the end, though, it's not a very useful question to ask. The important issue concerning color isn't about how we perceive colors, but whether the relationships between colors, objects, etc. are the same or not. For most people, the answer is yes - even if you and I see two different things when we see red, as long as the relationship between red and blue, red and green, red and stop signs, etc. remains the same, we are for all practical purposes seeing the same thing.

 

[RandFan]

In the end, though, it's not a very useful question to ask.

Sure it is. It's a very significant thing to ask. See Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers.

The important issue concerning color isn't about how we perceive colors, but whether the relationships between colors, objects, etc.

You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.

Just because you don't think something is significant doesn't mean that it isn't.

If we did perceive things differently then why do we? Can we test for it?

Important scientific questions that neuroscientists are working on at this very moment.

 

[kmortis]

You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.

And, when it was invented in the 1400's, nth order differential equations were nothing but a theoretical curiosity. Stayed that way until Lorenz found a use for them.

RandFan,
Take a listen to Radiolab's show on Morality. The second(?) sotry is about universal morality. The whole fat man v. train bit.

 

[qayak]

Qayak, with all due respect, most of the world does not share your morality. I don't know where or how I would find such a morality. Looking in our genes can only tell us what is possible not what is right.

I never said they did but humans share many basic concepts of morality. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human moral universals.

To find morality in our genes is to make a naturalistic fallacy.

Really? Are you saying that morality has nothing to do with evolution and genetics? I think it is safe to say that is completely wrong and would make morals as magical as god! Or are you saying god did it?

I was only talking about humans.

So was I but I was talking about the whole of human kind, not just an individual or small group.

Read Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and you will better understand what I am talking about.

 

[Z]

Sure it is. It's a very significant thing to ask. See Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers.

You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.

Just because you don't think something is significant doesn't mean that it isn't.

If we did perceive things differently then why do we? Can we test for it?

Important scientific questions that neuroscientists are working on at this very moment.

Why is it important? Why is it significant? If you can't even demonstrate what it is we perceive, how does that affect anything? Isn't it the relationships between perceptions that matter, and not the perceptions itself?

Think VERY CAREFULLY about that.

Otherwise, you're about to admit that the search for a deistic, intangible, non-material God is also significant...

 

[RandFan]

Why is it important?

For the very same reasons knock out mice are important. It is in the differences that we learn things.

Why is it significant?

For many, many important reasons. See Ramachandran's book. But that aside, scientific knowledge is intrinsically important even when we don't have practical applications.

If you can't even demonstrate what it is we perceive, how does that affect anything?

But there is every reason to believe that we can.

Isn't it the relationships between perceptions that matter, and not the perceptions itself?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that the there is a difference between the color blue and read to both person A and B then I would say that is important but not the only important thing.

Think VERY CAREFULLY about that.

Otherwise, you're about to admit that the search for a deistic, intangible, non-material God is also significant...

Non Sequitur.

Neuroscience is making enormous strides in understanding perception. We can make inferences as to why we might perceive green the same. It's not as amorphous as you would suggest. We can't prove it absolutely but we can be reasonable certain for more and more reasons all of the time.

 

[RandFan]

I never said they did but humans share many basic concepts of morality. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human moral universals.

Nothing is absolutely universal but I largely agree with this. I don't for a moment understand how it supports your thesis. It doesn't establish what is right and wrong only why so many of us perceive the same things as right and wrong. The problem is that I've already given you many examples of how this fails. Nature is only half the story. Morality is a product of nature AND nurture.

Are you saying that morality has nothing to do with evolution and genetics?

Of course not. I've been saying over and over that morality is linked to genetics. That's silly.

I'm saying you can't derive an ought from an is.

I think it is safe to say that is completely wrong and would make morals as magical as god!

Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is also wrong.

So was I but I was talking about the whole of human kind, not just an individual or small group.

"Small groups"? The Mayans were not small groups. Muslims are not a small group. There are no absolute monolithic codes among humans.

Read Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and you will better understand what I am talking about.

I own the book. I've read it many times. I think you should re-read it.

Shermers thesis is that "morals are the result of our natural existence, the culture that we live in and the exigencies of our daily lives".

 

[Z]

For the very same reasons knock out mice are important. It is in the differences that we learn things.

Evasion noted.

For many, many important reasons. See Ramachandran's book. But that aside, scientific knowledge is intrinsically important even when we don't have practical applications.

I agree; yet unless the relationships themselves are different, we won't even begin to be able to know if the perceptions themselves are different.

But there is every reason to believe that we can.

Please list some of them.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that the there is a difference between the color blue and read to both person A and B then I would say that is important but not the only important thing.

Those differences are the only important things, regarding perceptions.

When you first see something red, and your mom tells you that its color is red, and you label it as such, you form a relationship between two things that you perceived. It doesn't matter if what you saw, other people see as green or blue or fuschia; if they saw something that color and were told it was red, then it's red, regardless.

It's only in the relationships between perceptions that problems arise - when what you perceive as green is the same as what you perceive as red, for example. The problem isn't the perception itself, but the relationship between those perceptions.

Non Sequitur.

Not at all. Perceptions are our most ephemeral property. Only in their absence, or when the relationships between them are flawed, can we even begin to guess at what's going on.

You have already admitted that we'll never be absolutely sure that what we perceive as 'red' is the same or different for every person, and that's a fact; hence, perception itself is as pointless to pursue as a deistic, non-involved deity. It isn't the perception that matters, but the relationships between perceptions, just as it isn't the deity that matters, but how people react thinking such a deity exists.

Neuroscience is making enormous strides in understanding perception. We can make inferences as to why we might perceive green the same. It's not as amorphous as you would suggest. We can't prove it absolutely but we can be reasonable certain for more and more reasons all of the time.

And one day you'll be able to write down what green looks like to you, I suppose, without referring to the relationships between other things?

I doubt it.

 

[RandFan]

Evasion noted.

Asserting something is an evasion doesn't make it so.

I agree; yet unless the relationships themselves are different, we won't even begin to be able to know if the perceptions themselves are different.

Not true.

Please list some of them.

I think Ramachandran does it better than I ever could. I'm not a neuroscientist and I would be clunky on detailing the reasons. However, it provides insight on how and why we percive at all.

It doesn't matter if what you saw, other people see as green or blue or fuschia; if they saw something that color and were told it was red, then it's red, regardless.

John: Mom, what color is this?
Mom: It's an orange, the color is orange.
John: Is this also an orange?
Mom: No that is an apple.
John: Oh, it's the same color as the orange.

 

[RandFan]

Not at all. Perceptions are our most ephemeral property. Only in their absence, or when the relationships between them are flawed, can we even begin to guess at what's going on.

Bingo. And we can learn so much from these flaws. We can also understand why there is perception at all and what causes it and therefore make many important inferences as to why we perceive the same.

You have already admitted that we'll never be absolutely sure that what we perceive as 'red' is the same or different for every person...

We will never absolutely know anything. Not much of a point there.

...perception itself is as pointless to pursue...

Faulty premise, wrong inference, wrong conclusion.

And one day you'll be able to write down what green looks like to you, I suppose, without referring to the relationships between other things?

No, I'll let neuroscientists explain the physics of it and why we can draw such inferences.

 

[qayak]

Nothing is absolutely universal but I largely agree with this. I don't for a moment understand how it supports your thesis. It doesn't establish what is right and wrong only why so many of us perceive the same things as right and wrong. The problem is that I've already given you many examples of how this fails. Nature is only half the story. Morality is a product of nature AND nurture.

Of course not. I've been saying over and over that morality is linked to genetics. That's silly.

I know it is silly which is why I couldn't believe you wrote it.

I'm saying you can't derive an ought from an is.

You are wrong about that. Humans have the ability to see how things are and to see how they could be made better. That is making an ought out of an is. Happens all the time.

Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is also wrong.

???????????? You are the one that made the silly statement, I just pointed out the silliness.

"Small groups"? The Mayans were not small groups. Muslims are not a small group. There are no absolute monolithic codes among humans.

Irrelevent to what I said.

I own the book. I've read it many times. I think you should re-read it.

Shermers thesis is that "morals are the result of our natural existence, the culture that we live in and the exigencies of our daily lives".

Seems to me Shermer discarded much of the moral relativism that you suibscribe to.

 

[RandFan]

You are wrong about that. Humans have the ability to see how things are and to see how they could be made better.

1. How is that deriving an oght from an is? That doesn't make sense.
2. Who is to say what is better?

I know it is silly which is why I couldn't believe you wrote it.

This does not make any sense from the context of what I said.

???????????? You are the one that made the silly statement, I just pointed out the silliness.

What silly statement?

Seems to me Shermer discarded much of the moral relativism that you suibscribe to.

"Seems to you"? I really think you need to read his book again.

ETA: Here's a hint of what you should be looking for. "Provisional morality"? What does Shermer mean by that? Is it that there are fundamentals but no absolutes? Why does sherm talk about culture if culture is not relevant? Why does Shermer discuss the exigencies of our daily lives."

Those are all meaningless of morality is ONLY a product of genetics.

Read it again, you will find that is neither a complete moral relativist and neither is he an absolutist.

 

[LBN]

In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

 

[qayak]

ETA: Here's a hint of what you should be looking for. "Provisional morality"? What does Shermer mean by that? Is it that there are fundamentals but no absolutes? Why does sherm talk about culture if culture is not relevant? Why does Shermer discuss the exigencies of our daily lives."

Those are all meaningless of morality is ONLY a product of genetics.

Nonsense. No one said it is only a product of genetics. I only argued against your claim that it had no basis in genetics.

Read it again, you will find that is neither a complete moral relativist and neither is he an absolutist.

Shermer discards moral relativism, which means he discards a lot of the allowances made for culture. In his way of thinking, it is just as wrong top kill another person, no matter which culture you belong to. He cites several principles that he bases his ideas on:

1- The Ask God Principle
2- The Ask First Principle
3- The Happiness Principle
4-The Liberty Principle
5- The Moderation Principle

Shermer doesn't ever say that slavery is right. Based on his principles, it is always wrong. Many relativists would say that this is a judgement we are not allowed to make as it may interfere with someone else's cultural beliefs. That is a position that is unjustifiable and cowardly.

And he discards the idea that it is okay for one culture to visit atrocities on another, regardless of the beleifs of the culture they belong to. The closest he comes to allowing this would be if you could show that the other culture was, in fact, a different species which is going to be pretty hard considering our knowledge of genetics.

Shermer also discards absolutism for obvious reasons. Sometimes there are good reasons for immoral acts.

Provisional morality is the result of applying scientific thinking to morality. Something many people say is not possible but seems to work very well.

As he puts it: "In provisional ethics, moral or immoral means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent."

He then goes on to apply the idea of fuzzy logic to the problem to come up with Fuzzy Provisional Morality.

I think you would agree that his ideas make a lot of sense. It is a position I have held for a long time, one I originally got from Sagan's and Druyan's writings. In fact, it is a postion I have expressed in almost every discussion of morality I have ever gotten into. It is also a position that many people say is impossible to hold. They say science has nothing to say about morality. There have been a whole lot of scientists who seem to disagree.

 

[Z]

Well, RandFan, you're entitled to your opinions, of course; and there's really no point in arguing with you, since you don't seem to understand that you already agree with me (that relationships are the important part of understanding perception).

For that matter, Ramachandran basically agrees as well. At least, his work on Synesthesia says as much - that it's not the individual perception that matters, as much as the relationship of that perception with other perceptions and data from the brain.

Or, without interaction, perception is irrelevant.

Your own example with the orange illustrates this perfectly - that it is the relationship between the colors that the boy fails to be able to recognize. The example relies entirely on the relationship of apples, oranges, and their respective colors. It doesn't tackle the individual perceptions at all.

But all things considered, I don't blame you. It's apparently not an easy concept for you to grasp. So far, it hasn't been a very easy concept for much of anyone to grasp. Luckily, the people who have grasped it, are the ones who are able to do something with it.

 

[RandFan]

Nonsense. No one said it is only a product of genetics. I only argued against your claim that it had no basis in genetics.

Proof please?

You know, it is this kind of behavior that really bothers me. I won't deny that I've mistaken people's intent or statements in the past. However I've learned that before making such adamant claims I find the basis first.

You have no basis in fact to make such a claim.

So, I would appreciate (a) proving this claim or (b) an acknowledgment that you are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Shermer doesn't ever say that slavery is right. Based on his principles, it is always wrong. Many relativists would say that this is a judgment we are not allowed to make as it may interfere with someone else's cultural beliefs. That is a position that is unjustifiable and cowardly.

And he discards the idea that it is okay for one culture to visit atrocities on another, regardless of the beliefs of the culture they belong to. The closest he comes to allowing this would be if you could show that the other culture was, in fact, a different species which is going to be pretty hard considering our knowledge of genetics.

Shermer also discards absolutism for obvious reasons. Sometimes there are good reasons for immoral acts.

Provisional morality is the result of applying scientific thinking to morality. Something many people say is not possible but seems to work very well.

As he puts it: "In provisional ethics, moral or immoral means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent."

He then goes on to apply the idea of fuzzy logic to the problem to come up with Fuzzy Provisional Morality.

I think you would agree that his ideas make a lot of sense. It is a position I have held for a long time, one I originally got from Sagan's and Druyan's writings. In fact, it is a position I have expressed in almost every discussion of morality I have ever gotten into. It is also a position that many people say is impossible to hold. They say science has nothing to say about morality. There have been a whole lot of scientists who seem to disagree.

Science absolutely has something to say about morality.

If you search this forum for RandFan and morality you will find that I have maintained that for a very, very long time. You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my philosophy of morality. Further it is demonstrable that you hold a completely spurious belief about my philosophy (see previous post).

That said,

Shermer demonstrates why reason can and will likely ultimately lead most if not all groups to the same moral fundamentals because we are all mostly wired the same. I agree with this.

However, Shermer concedes that these are his principles. Not everyone shares Shermers principles. We can, using reason, adopt Shermers principles and denounce the Spartans for leaving their lame children to the elements to die. However, given the culture and exigencies of the lives of the Spartans Shermer would conclude that for them their actions were moral.

Now, if our brains were wired to kill lame children, like many animals do then that WOULD be moral by this logic. Saying something is moral simply because it is in our genes is a naturalistic fallacy.

Shermer isn't telling us what OUGHT to be moral he is telling us why we ARE moral.

FWIW, my views on morality are very close to Shermer's. That said, Shermer hasn't discovered any immutable laws of morality. He is simply explaining why perceive as moral that which is moral and why, if we use reason rather than superstition we will act, mostly, in universal ways.

 

[RandFan]

Your own example with the orange illustrates this perfectly - that it is the relationship between the colors that the boy fails to be able to recognize. The example relies entirely on the relationship of apples, oranges, and their respective colors. It doesn't tackle the individual perceptions at all.

Actually it does. Why does the boy percieve two colors as the same? The answer to that question goes a long way to help us infer why we would likely all percieve color similarly and not simply see a distinction between the two. Why when I see red and blue and you see red and blue that my perception of red is roughly the same as your perception of red and not simply different than blue.

But all things considered, I don't blame you.

I don't blame you either z. And I sincerly hope that some day you will understand.

Cheers.