moral relativism

[Iwannaplato]

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

Well, if you don't like these beliefs and the actions associated with them, struggle against them.

If you can't figure out what you prefer, if you're so fractured adn fragmented that you can't tell if you want there to be another Final Solution or not, then you can't just ignore the rise of such things.

Yup, there are those who insist, there are those who say, there are those who believe....And you can focus on them, yes, and lament their certainty, those that have it, and their diversity and the lack of proof that one group is right.

That's a life. A complete and utter choice amongst many.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
D E Tarkington

It’s actually two different questions. As far as what grounds morality: pretty much nothing.

Unless, perhaps, you count all of the rewards and punishments embedded culturally in the legal system. In other words, while nothing grounds morality essentially, there are any number of ways in which citizens might be inclined to accept conflicting sets of moral and political prejudices. Through democracy and rule of law and through the "peaceful exchange of power".

It's just that legal sanctions are anchored to political systems that are in turn anchored to political economies that evolve [sometimes dramatically] over the course of actual human interactions historically. And then, of course, one or another rendition of the Golden Rule: those who have the gold, rule.

That’s the bad news, and why people feel so free to be so immoral. It’s the nihilistic perspective we all potentially share even if we resist or pose philosophical principles against it – principles that ultimately prove to be little more than human constructs based on assumptions that float on thin air or upon the underlying nothingness of things.

Or, of course, the good news. If you get my drift.

For example, for the sociopaths and the might makes right autocrats and the amoral "show me the money" global capitalists, it's not so much that they feel free to live immoral lives, but that moral lives themselves are deemed merely to be the social, political and economic constructs: "opiates of the people".

The nihilistic perspective is why most of our discourses break down to basic assumptions that have nowhere to go and result in standoffs.

And, ironically enough, in my view, this revolves by and large around objectivism. There are so many, many One True Paths out there from which to choose, no one is really all that far from one. If only because most of us as children are indoctrinated ourselves into embodying that path.

Take, for instance, the debate over abortion, which always breaks down to arguments about when human life begins.

Let alone whether the emphasis should be placed on the "natural right" of the unborn to life, or the "political right" of women to control their own reproductive system.

I mean, to what criteria are we going to turn to adjudicate the argument? Nature? If we went by that criterion, we would still be primates guiltlessly killing anything inconvenient that didn’t belong to our immediate tribe. Maybe religion, then? After the Inquisition and the burning of supposed witches, we can all see where that can potentially lead.

Not to worry though, right? Yeah, sure, there are any number of men and women out there who do inflict draconian repercussions on those who refuse to become "one of us".

But not you though.

[Belinda]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
D E Tarkington

It’s actually two different questions. As far as what grounds morality: pretty much nothing.

Unless, perhaps, you count all of the rewards and punishments embedded culturally in the legal system. In other words, while nothing grounds morality essentially, there are any number of ways in which citizens might be inclined to accept conflicting sets of moral and political prejudices. Through democracy and rule of law and through the "peaceful exchange of power".

It's just that legal sanctions are anchored to political systems that are in turn anchored to political economies that evolve [sometimes dramatically] over the course of actual human interactions historically. And then, of course, one or another rendition of the Golden Rule: those who have the gold, rule.

That’s the bad news, and why people feel so free to be so immoral. It’s the nihilistic perspective we all potentially share even if we resist or pose philosophical principles against it – principles that ultimately prove to be little more than human constructs based on assumptions that float on thin air or upon the underlying nothingness of things.

Or, of course, the good news. If you get my drift.

For example, for the sociopaths and the might makes right autocrats and the amoral "show me the money" global capitalists, it's not so much that they feel free to live immoral lives, but that moral lives themselves are deemed merely to be the social, political and economic constructs: "opiates of the people".

The nihilistic perspective is why most of our discourses break down to basic assumptions that have nowhere to go and result in standoffs.

And, ironically enough, in my view, this revolves by and large around objectivism. There are so many, many One True Paths out there from which to choose, no one is really all that far from one. If only because most of us as children are indoctrinated ourselves into embodying that path.

Take, for instance, the debate over abortion, which always breaks down to arguments about when human life begins.

Let alone whether the emphasis should be placed on the "natural right" of the unborn to life, or the "political right" of women to control their own reproductive system.

I mean, to what criteria are we going to turn to adjudicate the argument? Nature? If we went by that criterion, we would still be primates guiltlessly killing anything inconvenient that didn’t belong to our immediate tribe. Maybe religion, then? After the Inquisition and the burning of supposed witches, we can all see where that can potentially lead.

Not to worry though, right? Yeah, sure, there are any number of men and women out there who do inflict draconian repercussions on those who refuse to become "one of us".

But not you though.

Religious creeds are a sophisticated branch of political creeds. To illustrate that, look at the Ayatollahs and their support of a proxy war in the Middle East.

Responsibility for choices and judgements . Dear Brutus, responsibility is each person's.

[iambiguous]

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

Well, if you don't like these beliefs and the actions associated with them, struggle against them.

What on Earth do you think I'm doing here? But more to the point [mine, say] what I do is to suggest that moral and political and spiritual values themselves are derived existentially from the assumptions I make regarding the human condition itself.

So, how would I go about struggling against beliefs which I have no capacity myself to really discredit? That's why for me "here and now", democracy and the rule of law reflect "the best of all possible worlds".

Instead, I ask those who do believe in objective morality and immortality and salvation to explore their own convictions with me given a particular set of conflicting goods pertaining to a particular set of circumstances.

If you can't figure out what you prefer, if you're so fractured adn fragmented that you can't tell if you want there to be another Final Solution or not, then you can't just ignore the rise of such things.

Right.

After I click on Autonomy in my brain, I just need to locate the Good/Evil switch and click on Good.

And I can't think of anything the amoral folks above would appreciate more than everyone simply ignoring them.

Instead, one way or another, once you choose to sustain relationships with others in any particular community, they may or may not allow you to ignore them.

That's a life. A complete and utter choice amongst many.

Note to others:

I know, I know: He forgot: click.

[Iwannaplato]

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

Well, if you don't like these beliefs and the actions associated with them, struggle against them.

What on Earth do you think I'm doing here?

It seems like in general you are expressing you're being fractured and fragmented and fighting objectivism in general.

But perhaps you're not fractured and fragmented on this issue: which was what I was actually probing. If not, how did that happen? How is your fractured and fragmented state not across the board? If you are fractured adn fragmented about Final Solution type politics, attitudes and actions, how does that lead to you struggling agains them?

But more to the point [mine, say] what I do is to suggest that moral and political and spiritual values themselves are derived existentially from the assumptions I make regarding the human condition itself.

Yes, exactly, that's what I see you doing. I didn't know you struggled against specific objectivist positions more than others. Or better put, I wasn't sure if you noticed and how this is integrated with what you just said was more the to point about what you are doing?

So, how would I go about struggling against beliefs which I have no capacity myself to really discredit?

OK. Please re-read what you just wrote to me here. You reacted, it seems to me, in completely opposite ways:
1) What on earth do you think I am doing here? That's was your first reaction. Incredulous that I might think you weren't strugging against that. Which would make one think you are not fractured and fragmented on the issue.
2) Suddenly, above 'How would I go about struggling against beliefs you have no capacity yourself to discredit.

So, you were incredulous that I would even consider that you weren't struggling against Final Solution type stuff and then asking how you possibly could struggle against them.

Can you sort that out?

[iambiguous]

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have… evolved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

On the other hand, as beautiful and wonderful as it can be, it doesn't make the evolution of biological life on Earth any less the brutal slaughterhouse of predator and prey that it is.

As for the history of our own species?

“Moral concepts are embodied in and partially constitutive of forms of social life.” Alasdair MacIntyre, Short History of Ethics

They have to be, right? Once people congregate into communities there is simply no getting around the necessity for rewarding and punishing particular sets of behaviors. Call them folkways or mores or customs or conventions or laws, it all comes down to rules.

Darwin had an evolutionary view of ethics ‘from the side of natural history’ which connects with MacIntyre’s insight into morality’s connections with social life. This article will show how Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the moral sense evolved from a combination of social instincts and well-developed mental powers.

Right, and look where we are now. Seriously though, the problem remains: translating "social instincts and well-developed mental powers" into actual social, political and economic policy. Our rules or theirs?

If this is so, moral philosophers will need to pay more attention to Darwin’s views, and in response, rethink morality along naturalistic lines. The result, I suggest, can be a rich concept of moral intelligence.

Of course, there are different renditions of that as well. A natural morality? Okay, what on Earth does that mean? And can one be pinned down such that natural laws can emanate from it. People are rewarded and punished based on their adherence to this natural morality. And the punishments can be quite severe for those deemed "one of them".

As for any and all "rich concepts of moral intelligence", sure, bring them down to Earth. See how they fare "in reality".

[iambiguous]

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

Well, if you don't like these beliefs and the actions associated with them, struggle against them.

What on Earth do you think I'm doing here?

It seems like in general you are expressing you're being fractured and fragmented and fighting objectivism in general.

But perhaps you're not fractured and fragmented on this issue: which was what I was actually probing. If not, how did that happen? How is your fractured and fragmented state not across the board? If you are fractured adn fragmented about Final Solution type politics, attitudes and actions, how does that lead to you struggling agains them?

All I can do here is to note what being/feeling fractured and fragmented means to me, what objectivism mean to me, what moral nihilism means to me...here and now. Then the part where they mean something different to others. Then the part where, given particular sets of circumstances, we explore our different sets of assumptions out in the particular world we live and interact in.

But more to the point [mine, say] what I do is to suggest that moral and political and spiritual values themselves are derived existentially from the assumptions I make regarding the human condition itself.

Yes, exactly, that's what I see you doing. I didn't know you struggled against specific objectivist positions more than others. Or better put, I wasn't sure if you noticed and how this is integrated with what you just said was more the to point about what you are doing?

What I struggle against ultimately is the assumption that human existence is essentially meaningless and puposeless, that morality is the embodiment of dasein derived existentially from the lives that we live and that deasth = oblivion.

Then the part where some objectivists are not content with just embracing their own comforting and consoling enlightenment, but insist that all others must be enlightened as well.

So, how would I go about struggling against beliefs which I have no capacity myself to really discredit?

OK. Please re-read what you just wrote to me here. You reacted, it seems to me, in completely opposite ways:
1) What on earth do you think I am doing here? That's was your first reaction. Incredulous that I might think you weren't strugging against that. Which would make one think you are not fractured and fragmented on the issue.
2) Suddenly, above 'How would I go about struggling against beliefs you have no capacity yourself to discredit.

Again, "in your head" this is how you understand me. It's not, however, how I understand myself "in my head". In part because how I understand myself is no less fractured and fragmenterd. And no less subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new sources of information and knowledge.

And all I can do with you and others is attempt to convey how "for all practical purposes" my thinking about morality has evolved over the years. I post my signature threads and ask others to note how my points either are or are not relevant to themselves given a particular context.

So, you were incredulous that I would even consider that you weren't struggling against Final Solution type stuff and then asking how you possibly could struggle against them.

Can you sort that out?

Here I can only come back to this:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

[Iwannaplato]

OK. Please re-read what you just wrote to me here. You reacted, it seems to me, in completely opposite ways:
1) What on earth do you think I am doing here? That's was your first reaction. Incredulous that I might think you weren't strugging against that. Which would make one think you are not fractured and fragmented on the issue.
2) Suddenly, above 'How would I go about struggling against beliefs you have no capacity yourself to discredit.

Again, "in your head" this is how you understand me.

No, quite the opposite, I was saying I didn't understand. I was asking you to explain what seemed like contradictions to me. I finished my post pointing out what seemed like contradicitions. First, obviously that is what you are doing is fighting things like the Final Solution. Then later, how could you possible to that. I asked you to explain what seem like completely opposed reactions. Obviously you fight it, how could I even ask. How could you possibly fight it.

I read the final quote, but I still don't see an answer. Do you fight them or do you think you can't possibly?

[iambiguous]

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

The Social Instincts

The social instincts, Darwin wrote, are “the prime principle of man’s moral constitution”. The moral sense “is aboriginally derived from the social instincts, for both relate at first exclusively to the community.”

Darwin offered extensive evidence that we are social animals, and that we share our moral sense with our primate evolutionary predecessors.

Of course, as soon as you bring up something like this in regard to human interactions, you have to start drawing those godawful lines between genes and memes. Then the part where those like Marx and Engels started connecting the dots historically between I and we given the reality of political economy, given further the historical evolution of the means of production. Then the part where Freud and Jung introduced the complexities of human psychology. Then the part where Reich hammered home the suspicion that sexual repression as a political tool sustains the ruling class. Then the part where Nietzsche yanks God out from under it all. Then the part where Wittgenstein starts to probe the very limitations of language itself in pinning us down.

In other words, for all practical purposes, "social instincts" can come to be attached to any number of conflicting goods in any number of different ways all up and down the moral and political spectrum. In other words, social instincts meet historical and cultural prejudices.

The social instincts, Darwin held, have evolved through “numerous slight, yet profitable variations.” Associating in groups improves the chances of survival compared with solitary existence. Sometimes, he admitted, one cannot determine whence a specific social instinct originated – natural selection; other instincts such as sympathy; reason; imitativeness; or ‘long continued habit’. Moreover, different instincts have different degrees of strength – but the social instincts are stronger and more enduring than many other

Even instinct, the part of "I" that dwells deep down in the reptilian brain, are never entirely attributable to just this but not that. The fact is that social interactions can be manifested in any number of at times very different ways.

On the other hand...

Darwin said the social instincts are not like instinctual behaviour, viz, a bird’s drive to migrate and build nests. However, he added, the disposition to associate may be innate in the higher animals.

Associate in regard to what, however? There are social instincts among the capitalists and social instincts among the socialists. Social instincts during the Sunday service, and social instincts among the Hell's Angels.

In evidence he observed that many animals are unhappy if long separated from their fellows, also noting “man’s dislike of solitude and his wish for society beyond that of his own family.” Indeed an individual who showed no trace of social feeling would be “an unnatural monster.”

Some animals are considerably more social than others. Orangutans for example actually prefer solitude...being alone "by nature". And among people some [like me] prefer a solitary existence as well. For any number of reasons derived from any combination of variables.

[Iwannaplato]

Some animals are considerably more social than others. Chimps for example actually prefer solitude...being alone "by nature". And among people some [like me] prefer a solitary existence as well. For any number of reasons dirived from any combination of variables.

Chimpanzees are very social animals and spend a lot of time with others in their group. They live in communities, which are large groups that can have anywhere from 20 to over 100 chimps. These communities often split into smaller groups to look for food, then come back together. This allows chimps to be social but also flexible, depending on how much food there is and what is happening around them. They groom each other, play, and form alliances, especially among males who work together to establish their place in the group and protect their territory. Female chimps are often more independent, especially when caring for young, but they are still part of the community’s social life.

You might have been thinking of Orangutans, which are very solitary.

As far as yourself. Try going for two weeks without posting online to your fellow social mammals. Only watch documentaries on things, not on people during that time. IOW allows yourself to experience your solitariness and stop the online grooming rituals and interactions. Then let us know if you are a solitary being.

But in general, sure these are tendencies. And dasein, as you would put it, can eliminate the urge to associate or more likely suppress it, but it's still there. If we have bad experience, or if we are fractured and fragmented to the degree that we do not feel comfortable interacting with people, sure, we may choose to be alone. But as a species, with some exceptions, we like to be social with others. And some who are isolated, if you look carefully at their actions, they are communicating or planning to communicate to other humans: there is an underlying focus on, at some point or ongoing in your case, telling others about their ideas, problems, thoughts, reactions, and then hearing how other humans respond. We’ve got billions of humans and there is diversity. And given that we have the most neuroplastic brains, we have greater diversity than other social animals. But none of that undermines what you quoted.

[iambiguous]

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

The Moral Sense

The moral sense, Darwin claimed, “first developed, in order that those animals which would profit by living in society, should be induced to live together”. It is “fundamentally identical with the social instincts”.

Here's the thing though. Social instincts among our own species [and only among our own species] become intertwined in ever evolving and changing cultural and historical memes. Memes that over the centuries have created complex social, political and economic interactions. As for profiting by living in society, does or does that not mean many different things to many different people?

Furthermore, Darwin interpreted “the imperious word ought” not just as a Kantian sense of duty, but also as reflecting an instinct, be it innate or acquired.

On the other hand, what, for all practical purposes, will that mean to each and every one of us given our own day to day interactions? Darwin seems to be suggesting that Kant was on the right track but was simply unable -- unwilling? -- to grasp the role that biological imperatives play in regard to human morality. Then those like Satyr and his ilk who place far, far more emphasis on genes. Thus, from their frame of mind, morality is largely...natural. On the other hand, if you are not sure what that means, they will tell you. Just don't make the mistake of challenging them.

[iambiguous]

The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.

Imagine for a moment that it will soon be possible to program a computer in such a way that it can generate the answer to any particular moral dilemma we might be faced with. Now further imagine the process that might lead to the writing of such a program, and what the content of that program might be.

Let's all start holding our bated breaths.

Machine morality? On the other hand, if the hard determinists are right, what are we right now but nature's very own most sophisticated of all machines. At least on this planet.

But, by all means, if you yourself ever come across an AI entity that convinced you it can "generate the answer to any particular moral dilemma we might be faced with", please bring it to my attention.

Oh, and don't forget to include a context.

We might imagine a huge project in which people from different backgrounds and cultures come together to debate and discuss not just moral problems, but the principles upon which they should be decided.

In other words, for some here, straight back up into the philosophical clouds in order to first nail down a technical, theoretical assessment of morality. Still, to the chagrin of some here, that project can go on and on and on soaring higher and higher into the intellectual stratosphere.

Many suggestions will be made as to which principles should be adopted. Some might suggest a single principle, such as, ‘Do for others what you would want them to do for you’, while others will want a hierarchy of principles, such that the less significant ones are moderated but not annulled by the principles to which we grant higher priority. The conversation about which principles to build into the program might go on a very long time and involve the active philosophical engagement of vast numbers of people.

Moral principles? Objective as opposed to universal? Deontological as opposed to confronting conflicting goods over and over again? And, in my view, once we are dealing with "the active philosophical engagement of vast numbers of people" the more dasein comes into play. And the more that reality is sustained the longer we go without ever resolving any of the actual moral and political conflagrations that continue to rend us.

Perhaps you think that such a thing could never happen, or that, if it did, it would turn out not to be a long conversation, but an eternal one, in which no agreement was ever reached. Perhaps the effort would lead to bloodshed as people, incapable of altering their perspectives, settled their differences through violence.

I don't know about eternity, but for over 2,000 years now [in the West] philosophers and ethicists have not exactly been able to accomplish much in the way of providing mere mortals in a No God with an actual One True Path.

[iambiguous]

The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.

Let us assume, however, that progress can be made. This requires that morality is a puzzle that, regardless of its difficulty, does have principles that are amenable to discovery. So the Morality Machine entails a particular kind of what is called ‘moral realism’: it means that there are such things as moral truths. Finding valid moral principles will involve a shared search for truth; but of a kind that might be unfamiliar to some readers.

Moral realism again:

Moral realism is the view that there are mind-independent moral facts in the universe, and people can make statements about them that are true or false. For instance, a moral realist might claim that 'killing a defenseless person is wrong' is a fact in the same way that 'two plus two sums to four' is a fact. study.com

Moral facts? Note one. Note one in regard to a moral conflagration that has beset humankind now for centuries.

If, in a No God world, you are able to convince yourself that killing a defenseless person is inherently, necessarily wrong, I won't pretend that I can demonstrate otherwise. But beyond just believing it "in your head", how would you go about demonstrating it to, say, sociopaths? or the amoral "show me the money" capitalists?

Also, don't many anti-abortion folks insist that unborn babies are themselves utterly defenseless. And thus, that abortion is [or certainly should be] prohibited. What are the moral facts here?

In the ordinary course of things, we tend to think that we can establish the veracity of propositions by empirical means – we look for evidence for our propositions in our experience. This approach seems fairly straightforward if we are talking about the claim that ‘the cat is on the mat’, but becomes more awkward for claims like ‘murder is wrong’.

And why is that? Because it either is a fact that cat is on the mat or it's false. And murder of course is a legal term and not a moral term. So, it would certainly be wrong for you to murder someone if he wished to stay out of prison.

Indeed, some moral realist theories involve the idea that knowing the moral truth involves some kind of special ‘moral perception’.

In other words, if you have one, cue your Intrinsic Self. That mysterious deep down inside you Intuitive Self that allows some to transcend dasein altogether, permitting them to "just know" certain things about the very nature of moral judgments.

This was the thought behind the ‘Intuitionism’ of the twentieth century Cambridge philosopher G. E. Moore. However, most of us don’t hold out much hope for the detection of what Ronald Dworkin, in his 2010 book Justice for Hedgehogs, called ‘moral particles’, or, in satirical mode, ‘morons’.

Ouch?

From my frame of mind, intuition is no less a manifestation of dasein.

Intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
Or
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
And
Intuition is intimately linked to our emotions, arising from complex neural circuits dedicated to the information processing of our feelings. Key brain regions like the amygdala, insula, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex play crucial roles. psychology today

In my view, while we come into the world hard-wired to embody emotions and psychological states, they are no less rooted existentially in dasein.

If someone says, "my gut tells me that homosexuality is wrong", where does that come from? Well, over the course of your life you come to be predisposed to think and to feel about it as you do.

After all, how many people will say, "I think homosexuality is wrong. I feel homosexuality is wrong. But intuitively I 'just know'"i t is right."

[iambiguous]

The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.

To be fair to G.E. Moore, he didn’t actually think that moral truths were the kinds of things that you found ‘in the world’. Rather, moral truth was ‘non-natural’, and subject to a special and fairly mysterious form of perception called ‘moral intuition’.

Got that? Okay, given a particular context involving conflicting goods that you yourself have experienced, note how this "fairly mysterious form of perception called ‘moral intuition’" was understood by you at the time. How did it prompt you to react/behave one way rather than another? From my frame of mind, "moral intuition" is most often embodied in one or another rendition of the Intrinsic Self. That's the part some are inclined to fall back on in order transcend dasein. The Real Me that just somehow knows these things. Either through God or any other One True Path.

For Moore, moral perception was only similar to ordinary perception in the sense that it was something you either just had or didn’t have. And just as some people have defective colour vision, they might also have defective moral vision (although most people won’t), and no amount of discussion will change that.

How about yourself? Do you have it or not? I myself have defective color vision. But that would appear to be entirely rooted biologically, congenitally in genes. The irony here then being that there are no actual colors out in the world to see. There's only the illusion of color created by the brain and the eyes in tandem.

Then the part where we either think we do have it or do not have it. But is this not just another illusion given that our brain compells us to think only that which we were never able not to think?

And, so far, here, nothing has yet to be resolved.

From the intuitionist viewpoint, giving reasons is not part of the business of determining moral truth. In this (if in nothing else), intuitionism has something in common with sceptical positions such as emotivism. Emotivism asserts that our moral attitudes are neither the product of reason nor of perception, they are merely matters of taste.

Not to worry though if that's not your thing. All you need do is just believe the opposite. After all, there are those who become convinced about these things simply because they do believe in them. If for no other reason then deep down inside, they already feel wholly in sync with one or another One True Path. Some from the moment they are able to be indoctrinated by others, and others as the existential embodiment of dasein from the cradle to the grave.

By contrast, giving reasons is at the heart of what Dworkin calls the ‘interpretative’ version of realism. In this view, moral truths are not things we see or otherwise perceive, but conclusions we arrive at. And the program for our Morality Machine is constructed via a process of moral interpretation.

Again, the moral conclusions/convictions we arrive at as individuals...to what extent do these reflect actual biological imperatives from birth rather than blank slates to be stuffed with memes historically, culturally and in terms of our own unique personal experiences.

[Belinda]

The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.

To be fair to G.E. Moore, he didn’t actually think that moral truths were the kinds of things that you found ‘in the world’. Rather, moral truth was ‘non-natural’, and subject to a special and fairly mysterious form of perception called ‘moral intuition’.

Got that? Okay, given a particular context involving conflicting goods that you yourself have experienced, note how this "fairly mysterious form of perception called ‘moral intuition’" was understood by you at the time. How did it prompt you to react/behave one way rather than another? From my frame of mind, "moral intuition" is most often embodied in one or another rendition of the Intrinsic Self. That's the part some are inclined to fall back on in order transcend dasein. The Real Me that just somehow knows these things. Either through God or any other One True Path.

For Moore, moral perception was only similar to ordinary perception in the sense that it was something you either just had or didn’t have. And just as some people have defective colour vision, they might also have defective moral vision (although most people won’t), and no amount of discussion will change that.

How about yourself? Do you have it or not? I myself have defective color vision. But that would appear to be entirely rooted biologically, congenitally in genes. The irony here then being that there are no actual colors out in the world to see. There's only the illusion of color created by the brain and the eyes in tandem.

Then the part where we either think we do have it or do not have it. But is this not just another illusion given that our brain compells us to think only that which we were never able not to think?

And, so far, here, nothing has yet to be resolved.

From the intuitionist viewpoint, giving reasons is not part of the business of determining moral truth. In this (if in nothing else), intuitionism has something in common with sceptical positions such as emotivism. Emotivism asserts that our moral attitudes are neither the product of reason nor of perception, they are merely matters of taste.

Not to worry though if that's not your thing. All you need do is just believe the opposite. After all, there are those who become convinced about these things simply because they do believe in them. If for no other reason then deep down inside, they already feel wholly in sync with one or another One True Path. Some from the moment they are able to be indoctrinated by others, and others as the existential embodiment of dasein from the cradle to the grave.

By contrast, giving reasons is at the heart of what Dworkin calls the ‘interpretative’ version of realism. In this view, moral truths are not things we see or otherwise perceive, but conclusions we arrive at. And the program for our Morality Machine is constructed via a process of moral interpretation.

Again, the moral conclusions/convictions we arrive at as individuals...to what extent do these reflect actual biological imperatives from birth rather than blank slates to be stuffed with memes historically, culturally and in terms of our own unique personal experiences.

answer: To the extent that people are and know that they are an intrinsically and necessarily a part of the natural environment. NB natural environment includes other individuals of the same species. That world view was reality for all peoples before historiography ,and for some few peoples almost until the present day. The extent to which humans can separate ourselves from the rest of nature is a matter of life or death.