There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[FlashDangerpants]

Hey, note Wittgenstein's "meaning of a word is in its use" which must be verified and justified to its utilities.

WHO ARE YOU to insist "it is not morality at all?"

Everyone. Find anyone who knows neither of us, tell them you have this theory that morality doesn't really include any right or wrong. They will politely inform you that this cannot be so because morality is exactly about right and wrong.

Note the ad populum fallacy.

I am aware SOME people [vulgar aka common public] relate 'right' or 'wrong' to morality in general.

Everybody does. Morality IS about right and wrong, it completely depends on those concepts, they are what it is FOR as well as what it is ABOUT. You can't get rid of that just to do easier philosophising, you might as well discard the number 7 for maths-proper.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If [it's a fact that] we're programmed not to kill humans, THAT IS NOT A MORAL FACT. It would just be a fact about human nature. And if instead we were programmed to kill humans, THAT WOULD ALSO NOT BE A MORAL FACT. It would not mean that we 'ought to kill humans'.

We ought to drink water and we are programmed to drink water.There are occasions when we ought not to drink water.

We are programmed to use our muscles and we ought to use our muscles. There are occasions when we ought not to use our muscles.

We are programmed not to steal from other people and we ought not to steal from other people. There are occasions when we ought to steal from other people.

We are programmed to cooperate with each other and we ought to cooperate with each other. There are occasions when we ought not to cooperate.

We are programmed not to kill other men and we ought not to kill other men. There are occasions when we ought to kill other men.

We are programmed to be Republicans and we ought to be Republicans. There are occasions when we ought not to be Republicans.

We are programmed to be Democrats and we ought to be Democrats, There are occasions when we ought not to be Democrats.

We are programmed to be Christians and we ought to be Christians. There are occasions when we ought not to be Christians.

We are programmed to be Platonists and we ought to be Platonists. Sometimes we ought not to be Platonists.

We are programmed to be racists and we ought to be racists. Sometimes we ought not to be racists.

Some of these examples are sillier than others and taken all together show it is impossible to pin down what human nature 'is'. I'd have to be able to define human nature to begin to make sense of Peter's thesis about facts of human nature.

___________________

[FlashDangerpants]

Some of these examples are sillier than others and taken all together show it is impossible to pin down what human nature 'is'. I'd have to be able to define human nature to begin to make sense of Peter's thesis about facts of human nature.

Not really, his thesis seems fairly simple to me. Evolution is not an algorithm that optimises for moral outcomes, evolution is the force that gave you your DNA, it makes no more sense for a human to investigate his DNA in search of the root of all goodness than it does for one of those wasps that lays its eggs in living insects heads to do so.

Evolution is the sort of amoral system that will (and has) insert into the human genome anything that promotes successful fucking and eating, even if that results in fucking and eating the same object. Anything that can be interpreted as morally good therein is coincidental. This cannot be the source of all that is good.

[Skepdick]

Everybody does. Morality IS about right and wrong, it completely depends on those concepts, they are what it is FOR as well as what it is ABOUT. You can't get rid of that just to do easier philosophising,

You've said fuckall about anything.

If morality depends on the concepts of "right" and "wrong" then you are necessarily claiming that the concepts of "right" and "wrong exist a priori morality and if "right" and "wrong" exist a priori, then you don't even need the concept of "morality"! Adding even more concepts to the muddy water just ain't helping your case, least one starts talking about right morality and wrong morality.

You seem rather confused about the order of chickens, eggs, carts and horses...

you might as well discard the number 7 for maths-proper.

Numbers don't exist. They are invented. You are welcome to ignore any invention you don't find useful...

[FlashDangerpants]

If morality depends on the concepts of "right" and "wrong" then you are necessarily claiming that the concepts of "right" and "wrong exist a priori morality and if "right" and "wrong" exist a priori, then you don't even need the concept of "morality"

That doesn't make any sense at all. What are you trying to say?

[Skepdick]

That doesn't make any sense at all. What are you trying to say?

The word "dependency" carries a connotation of temporal order.

If A depends on B, then B is prior to A.

But in a language that you do understand, lets just call it "contingency". A "depends" on B is the same as A is contingent upon B.

Morality depends on "right" and "wrong" it the same as saying: Morality is contingent upon the a priori existence of "right" and "wrong".

That's a pretty fucking confused way to be a moral anti-realist! No wonder you can't make sense of your own nonsense.

[Sculptor]

Some of these examples are sillier than others and taken all together show it is impossible to pin down what human nature 'is'. I'd have to be able to define human nature to begin to make sense of Peter's thesis about facts of human nature.

Not really, his thesis seems fairly simple to me. Evolution is not an algorithm that optimises for moral outcomes, evolution is the force that gave you your DNA, it makes no more sense for a human to investigate his DNA in search of the root of all goodness than it does for one of those wasps that lays its eggs in living insects heads to do so.

Evolution is the sort of amoral system that will (and has) insert into the human genome anything that promotes successful fucking and eating, even if that results in fucking and eating the same object. Anything that can be interpreted as morally good therein is coincidental. This cannot be the source of all that is good.

I think this problem is more simply solved by avoiding the common misconception that "evolution" is the cause of change. It is not. It is the effect of change.
In many animals, co-operation, has become a strategy that have given much advantage to those species that use it. There is no force directing that change as many animals have a strategy of going it alone, only to co-operate through mating (something which all higher forms have to do). Humans evolving on the Savanna would not have made it as loners. Groups were utterly necessary to migrate throughout the world.

But whilst humans are co-operative there has still been the need to kill to survive. This need has existed in a balance which has required humans to be capable of making distinctions between their own clades and things they can kill such as threats and food.

The process of natural selection is not perfect since it is not goal oriented, but results oriented. Evolution is the resulting effect. This balance, not being perfect means that some amongst us exploit co-operation for personal gain; look to CEOs and politicians, and gaols for a high yields of psychopathy.

[Sculptor]

Everybody does. Morality IS about right and wrong, it completely depends on those concepts, they are what it is FOR as well as what it is ABOUT. You can't get rid of that just to do easier philosophising, you might as well discard the number 7 for maths-proper.

I think you might have the cart before the horse here.
Morality is how we define what we like to think of as right and wrong. These are not set in stone, they have shades of grey, and depend and are contingent upon circumstances.
They are different according to who and what you are, your position in society, levels of power and influence.

[FlashDangerpants]

That doesn't make any sense at all. What are you trying to say?

The word "dependency" carries a connotation of temporal order.

If A depends on B, then B is temporally prior to A.

But in a language that you do understand, lets just call it "contingency". A "depends" on B is the same as A is contingent upon B.

Morality depends on "right" and "wrong" it the same as saying: Morality is contingent upon the a priori existence of "right" and "wrong".

That's a pretty fucking confused way to be a moral anti-realist! No wonder you can't make sense of your own nonsense.

I shouldn't have bothered asking, that is just stupid.

[Skepdick]

I shouldn't have bothered asking, that is just stupid.

The question is not about my stupidity. That's a fact.

The question is about your relative stupidity to me.

If you are less stupid than I am (disputed), you should have absolutely no problem explaining to us the sort of relationship you think you are describing between the concepts of "right", "wrong" and "morality" in the sentence "Morality depends on right and wrong".

depend /dɪˈpɛnd/ verb be controlled or determined by.

If morality depends on right and wrong, then morality is controlled or determined by right and wrong.

Which is exactly what I said. Both times.

Morality is contingent upon right and wrong.
Right and wrong exist a priori morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

I shouldn't have bothered asking, that is just stupid.

The question is not about my stupidity. That's a fact.

The question is about your relative stupidity to me.

If you are less stupid than I am (disputed), you should have absolutely no problem explaining to us the sort of relationship you think you are describing between the concepts of "right", "wrong" and "morality" in the sentence "Morality depends on right and wrong".

depend /dɪˈpɛnd/ verb be controlled or determined by.

If morality depends on right and wrong, then morality is controlled or determined by right and wrong.

Morality is the social linguistic framework that exists only as a category relating to such things as discussions about rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness and similar topics.

I don't need that sentence, it's equivalent to the sea depending on water.

[FlashDangerpants]

Everybody does. Morality IS about right and wrong, it completely depends on those concepts, they are what it is FOR as well as what it is ABOUT. You can't get rid of that just to do easier philosophising, you might as well discard the number 7 for maths-proper.

I think you might have the cart before the horse here.
Morality is how we define what we like to think of as right and wrong. These are not set in stone, they have shades of grey, and depend and are contingent upon circumstances.
They are different according to who and what you are, your position in society, levels of power and influence.

Possibly. But in either case I can make no sense of any attempt to describe what morality is without reference to rightness and wrongness, and even less sense of making up a "morality-proper" explicitly to leave something so fundamental to all of our moral language out of the picture entirely.

[Skepdick]

Morality is the social linguistic framework that exists only as a category relating to such things as discussions about rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness and similar topics.

ONLY as a linguistic category? That's an entirely new form of reductionism I haven't seen!

So before we had language to speak about "right", "wrong" and "morality" there was no such thing. That's necessarily a claim that morality depends on language.

You want to try back that up?

I don't need that sentence, it's equivalent to the sea depending on water.

It's precisely equivalent. Show me a sea without water.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If [it's a fact that] we're programmed not to kill humans, THAT IS NOT A MORAL FACT. It would just be a fact about human nature. And if instead we were programmed to kill humans, THAT WOULD ALSO NOT BE A MORAL FACT. It would not mean that we 'ought to kill humans'.

We ought to drink water and we are programmed to drink water.There are occasions when we ought not to drink water.

We are programmed to use our muscles and we ought to use our muscles. There are occasions when we ought not to use our muscles.

We are programmed not to steal from other people and we ought not to steal from other people. There are occasions when we ought to steal from other people.

We are programmed to cooperate with each other and we ought to cooperate with each other. There are occasions when we ought not to cooperate.

We are programmed not to kill other men and we ought not to kill other men. There are occasions when we ought to kill other men.

We are programmed to be Republicans and we ought to be Republicans. There are occasions when we ought not to be Republicans.

We are programmed to be Democrats and we ought to be Democrats, There are occasions when we ought not to be Democrats.

We are programmed to be Christians and we ought to be Christians. There are occasions when we ought not to be Christians.

We are programmed to be Platonists and we ought to be Platonists. Sometimes we ought not to be Platonists.

We are programmed to be racists and we ought to be racists. Sometimes we ought not to be racists.

Some of these examples are sillier than others and taken all together show it is impossible to pin down what human nature 'is'. I'd have to be able to define human nature to begin to make sense of Peter's thesis about facts of human nature.

___________________

I agree 'human nature' is a slippery thing - and I'm the last person to say it can be straightforwardly described. I use the term to characterise what VA calls our programming to behave in certain ways. VA says it's a fact that we're programmed not to kill humans. And I'm saying that, even if that's true, it isn't a moral fact. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent anyway.

VA's claim is this: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. And that's patent nonsense.

[FlashDangerpants]

Morality is the social linguistic framework that exists only as a category relating to such things as discussions about rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness and similar topics.

ONLY as a linguistic category? That's an entirely new form of reductionism I haven't seen!

Oh. OK then. So before we had language to speak about "right", "wrong" and "morality" there was no such thing.

What kind of stupid creatures invent a vocabulary to talk about non-existing things?

What sort of tedious automaton can only discuss things which "exist"? Certainly not ones with concepts such as fiction and imagination. And it's also hard to see what use they would have for the concept of 'existing' if they have no means to consider the concpet of not existing.

I don't need that sentence, it's equivalent to the sea depending on water.

It's precisely equivalent. Show me a sea without water.

Now it's equivalent to Skepdick depends on being an attention whore. It's not about what you depend on if it's just a case of what you are.