Where We Get Our Morals From

[articulett]

Ooh, colored font-- Now I know who the real truth teller is.

 

[six7s]

Ahhhh.... but, pray tell, of what, zigzactly, precisely, and other, similarly comma delineated and tangential bits, have I convinced you?

GP: Maybe you are just crazy.
M2: Indeed! But do not reject these teaching as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true.
http://www.ology.org/principia/body.html

 

[westprog]

Don't confuse the evolutionary "gift" of moral sentiments/tendencies/feelings with morality itself, which is more complicated. The should or ought derive from what we do with those sentiments. Without those sentiments handed to us from evolution (or from a creator if you are so inclined) morality would not be possible, even with a set of rules. Morality does not consist in rule-following. Rule-following is rule-following. Morality concerns a deeper sense of what actions one should take, and this only comes from valuation.

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse everyone here of committing the naturalistic fallacy.

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse me of accusing everyone here, because I didn't.

The question of valuation assumes either inherent value or assigned value. If value is something we assign, then it is just a matter of choice. If it's inherent, then where does it come from.

However, just because morals are something we choose, based on evolution and reason, doesn't mean that some work better than others - given a preferred outcome, of course. But the desired outcome is just a matter of choice - which is what humanism rests on.

 

[westprog]

Of course morals exist, arthwo. The question is their etiology. Did they evolve or did some god magically create them? The evidence is they evolved.

As a product of evolution are morals exact or absolute? Evolution doesn't typically give those kind of results.

It depends what you mean by "exist". If morals are evolved behaviour patterns, then it makes no sense to talk about a moral standard. All our behaviour comes from our evolutionary background. Our tendency to exterminate vast numbers of people just as much as rescuing orphans from a burning building.

 

[Mashuna]

Ahhhh.... but, pray tell, of what, zigzactly, precisely, and other, similarly comma delineated and tangential bits, have I convinced you?

GP: Maybe you are just crazy.
M2: Indeed! But do not reject these teaching as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true.
http://www.ology.org/principia/body.html

Well, big font is the truth. So you've convinced me that big font is not the truth.

This may seem paradoxical, but this conviction can be overriden by bigger fonts.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Do chimps start charities designed to help human beings?
Human morality goes way beyond mere survival, reproduction, and the smooth running of society.

As I said before, which you ignored, the fact that survival behaviors can and have been adapted for other uses does not mean they didn't originate as survival behaviors. As I'm sure you're aware, evolution works by using what's already there for a new purpose, and in the analogy for social moral behavior, it works in a very similar way. People care for pet dogs and cats as if they were their own children; does that mean the behavior that compels us to care for our children isn't a survival behavior?

Yes, there are some "morals" that go beyond the scope of suffering vs. well-being, such as the religious or political concept of thought crimes / sins. But nobody in their right mind, at least no one who wants to be taken seriously, would argue for the necessity of those morals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Welcome, new member, Hughnon-- plumjam is a forum troll, but we like to keep him around. He can be very entertaining so long as you keep your expectations for his understanding anything you say very, very low. Rock on.

PJ posts great pith on occasion.

He's likable enough. I don't recall any threats of condemning anyone to hell.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It depends what you mean by "exist". If morals are evolved behaviour patterns, then it makes no sense to talk about a moral standard. All our behaviour comes from our evolutionary background. Our tendency to exterminate vast numbers of people just as much as rescuing orphans from a burning building.

I would hope by the context of that comment I mean morals are a function of the human brain which result in an impact on behavior. They exist in the same way sadness or love exist.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse me of accusing everyone here, because I didn't.

Then I am mistaken. My apologies.

The question of valuation assumes either inherent value or assigned value. If value is something we assign, then it is just a matter of choice. If it's inherent, then where does it come from.

However, just because morals are something we choose, based on evolution and reason, doesn't mean that some work better than others - given a preferred outcome, of course. But the desired outcome is just a matter of choice - which is what humanism rests on.

As to valuation, there is not necessarily an either/or. Why not both? As to where does inherent valuation come from? -- why from our evolutionary heritage that provides us with different motivational states, emotions, tendencies toward community, digust at killing innocents, etc.

As to the rest, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you, perhaps, leave out a "not" in that sentence "doesn't mean that some work better than others"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It depends what you mean by "exist". If morals are evolved behaviour patterns, then it makes no sense to talk about a moral standard. All our behaviour comes from our evolutionary background. Our tendency to exterminate vast numbers of people just as much as rescuing orphans from a burning building.

No, because you assume that the proto-morality that serves as the basis of morality is all there is -- why I said not to accuse others of the naturalistic fallacy, which you just did.

Another part of our evolutionary heritage is our rationality, of which Skeptigirl is quite aware. It is our moral tendencies telescoped through rational thought that create morality.

 

[Herzblut]

Where We Get Our Morals From

I actually refuse any moral codex which cannot constitute a democratic state that respects and protects human rights.

Further, my cultural and historical background taught my to basically adapt to an abstract ethical concept. Namely Kantian ethics, based upon Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I accept its universal validity apart from very few, carefully considered exceptions. I don't think one can expect more than that from any ethical system.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I actually refuse any moral codex which cannot constitute a democratic state that respects and protects human rights.
.....

That sounds like wishful thinking..

Do you have any examples ?

 

[Herzblut]

That sounds like wishful thinking..

Do you have any examples ?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Would you explain, please?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I quoted you, and you don't understand what I mean ..



Do you have any examples of:

" ... a moral codex which constitutes a democratic state that respects and protects human rights.... "

 

[Herzblut]

Do you have any examples of:

" ... a moral codex which constitutes a democratic state that respects and protects human rights.... "

Sure. Kantian ethics and the state of Germany, for instance.

This refers to the concept of human dignity as the first and foremost object of legal protection (like freedom of speech in the US constitution). The important "object formula", no law may degrade any human to a mere object of a state act, is taken almost literally from Kant and has got a direct impact on all material law in Germany.

 

[rocketdodger]

Sure. Kantian ethics and the state of Germany, for instance.

This refers to the concept of human dignity as the first and foremost object of legal protection (like freedom of speech in the US constitution). The important "object formula", no law may degrade any human to a mere object of a state act, is taken almost literally from Kant and has got a direct impact on all material law in Germany.

So... do you have an answer to the question raised in another thread, regarding this protection of "human dignity?"

Allow me to refresh your memory.

1) You claim there is a German law prohibiting the state from making the decision to shoot down a hijacked plane, as long as there is at least a single innocent passenger aboard, regardless of how many other innocent lives it may save (for instance, by preventing the plane from slamming into a skyscraper).

2) You claim that this law is in place because of the 'inviolate nature of human dignity.' That is, that shooting down the plane would violate the dignity of the innocent passengers.

3) This implies that you think allowing a plane to crash and kill more innocent people does not violate their dignity.

So I ask you -- again -- why do you think this? Are you drawing some kind of a distinction between action and inaction?

 

[Herzblut]

1) You claim there is a German law prohibiting the state from making the decision to shoot down a hijacked plane, as long as there is at least a single innocent passenger aboard, ..snap..

No.

 

[six7s]

Sure. Kantian ethics and the state of Germany, for instance

@Herzblut:
Please, instead of simply rebutting what you did not say/imply, do explain how/where/when/etc 'Kantian ethics' influence the "moral codex which constitutes [the] democratic state" of Germany

 

[Henners]

God has not accepted anything, God created everything.. including moral truth.

On what day did he do that?

 

[westprog]

Did you, perhaps, leave out a "not" in that sentence "doesn't mean that some work better than others"?

Well, of course. This is going to be very difficult to follow if you insist on arguing with what I say instead of what I mean. In fact, it may end up difficult to follow.