BTW, good post and thanks for the tone. These issues really touch buttons. It's really not my intention to be provocative.
Thanks - I didn't think you were being provocative at all. I was concerned at one point that I might be if I used the rape example given in the OP (which is why I tried to find something less emotional).
You "don't accept that"? Are you saying that killing one's sibling is a priori wrong?
Not exactly. I think that some things are a priori wrong, but a higher order action like killing a sibling needs to be put into a context. I would say that to say "killing siblings is wrong" is similar to saying "rockets are powerful". As you say, "powerful compared to what?".
Sure, most rockets are powerful, and we can usually figure that killing siblings is wrong, but there are some toy rockets that barely get off the ground. We need the context.
On the other hand, I can say something like "nuclear reactions are more powerful than chemical reactions", and that's something that is true regardless of context (and continues to be true even in situations where I can derive more power from a chemical reaction, simply because there's more of the chemical).
Okay, so... basically I'm saying that there are a priori moral truths (in my opinion), but they are basic things like "pleasure is good".
No one says that it does. That isn't an answer though. Rape isn't a priori wrong.
I agree, but there are situations where if you look at the context, and understand what is a priori right or wrong, then no matter who you are, you will be forced to conclude that in that situation it was wrong.
You are looking at the world through the filters of your morality and then post hoc rationalizing your view of what is and isn't moral. Just because you and I might have a moral sense that rape is wrong doesn't make it wrong.
I agree. I think that's one of the biggest problems with my moral system. I take my preformed morality and perhaps try to justify it with first principles, rather than starting from first principles and coming to a fully formed moral system. That moral system would likely look much different from the one I use.
On the other hand, what I can do is take those "first principles" and apply them to my preformed morality, and if it comes up short, discard aspects of it. I think that's better than nothing, anyway.
If I'm wrong then you need to form a coherent argument that stands apart from our moral sentiment. Can you do that?
I think so, but I don't think it's complete.
I'll try to put it out in another post.
I don't understand your argument (point).
To be honest, I think it was me he who didn't quite understand your point, so I replied on a tangent.
Anyway, I was just saying that from my perspective we have to apply something more complex than emotion to form moral judgement. It's not enough to say 'this feels wrong' in order for it to be so. If morality were based on that, it would be no more justified to do what is "right" and oppose what is "wrong" than any other course of action. Choosing between going to a prostitute (because it feels good) and doing charity work (because it feels good) would be the same sort of choice.
I've not said anything so simple.
I'm not making this argument. I understand your point. I assure you it's not my intent to rationalize behavior purely through evolution. I've never done that here.
Agreed, I apologize for misreading you.
That said, it's isn't helpful because it ignores why and how we have a moral sense. If human survival relied on our killing our siblings we would have evolved a sense that it is moral. And it would be moral. That is trivially true.
I accept that we would have evolved a sense that it is moral, but not that it would be moral. Human survival relied on our violent animosity toward pretty much any social group that wasn't closely related to us. In my times and places that's been considered moral. But I think you and I agree that here and now it is not.
Your stance seems to assume that morality is a priori. It's not.
This is where we disagree. Or almost. I'll have to outline my opinion in another post. But basically I suggest that we all make basic moral assumptions about ourselves. I only think that we should apply fairness and see what about ourselves we think gives us moral standing and then apply the same moral standing to anyone who shares those qualities.
Those who make no moral assumptions about themselves (who don't view themselves as having moral standing) are free of this requirement. So in a way morality isn't a priori, but since I think pretty much everyone does make those assumptions, it practically is.
I know it's complicated but I'm not saying that we should justify behavior based on evolutionary traits. Only that we can understand the context of our morality.
In that case I apologize for misreading you. I agree with you, quite strongly, about that.
Here is the important question: Why isn't your gut reaction right?
Because there is nothing intrinsic to my gut reaction that should give it value. It could be anything. That it happens to lead me one way doesn't suggest that that has any moral value.
Before you answer it, consider the next hypothetical. Sorry.
You are on a bus full of passengers behind enemy lines during a war. It is known that the enemy kills enemy civilians so caught. A baby is crying and all efforts fail to muffle the cries or get the baby to stop. Do you kill the baby to save everyone else? (that's not really the important question). Here's the thing. Women as a group are the most likely to say no. People who have had children are more likely to say no. People, especially men, who have not had children are morel likely to say yes.
I'm sorry that I won't be able to give the sort of answer that you want. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think it's a very complicated question. If you gave me a problem in general relativity and asked me to solve it, I also couldn't give you a definite answer. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an answer.
But I'll try to do a little better. I think that the evolved sense isn't exactly arbitrary in the way that I suggested above. It's very well adapted to making certain moral choices. That doesn't mean it's always right (from my perspective of a semi-absolute morality). But the more we understand about it's evolution, the more that we can see where it should be trusted, and where not.
Similarly, if I want to catch a ball, I can trust my brain to do the intuitive calculus for me, and I don't need to do the calculations by hand. If I tried, I'd be more likely to make mistakes (not to mention much too slowly), and miss the ball. But I also know where my intuitive physics fails, and I can try to use other means in those circumstances.
Our (or at least my) understanding of morality is, I think, still far from advanced, but things like what you show above (that women or people with children are more likely to make a particular choice), are helping to improve that.
Here is the next important question to consider with the first: Don't you bring your perspective and genetic predisposition to bear on the problem? If you knew that there are different parts of the brain that fire (stastically) depending on gender and/or whether a person has a child or not. Does that come to bear on the dilemma?
It does, but the more I understand how my brain works, the more that I can use the parts that are useful in the situations where they are useful, and try to correct for the rest.
So you do believe that morality is a priori? It must be. That is the only way you could come to this conclusion.
Basically, yes.
