moral relativism

[popeye1945]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust. Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much rarer. [/quote]

Knowing good is that which supports the well-being and security of humanity. This is simpler and straightforward compared to the confusion generated by multiple cultures and their gods embracing little to nothing of our commonality. "Knowing good when we see it is much more difficult." That is because of the confusion generated by beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and the cultural norms and institutions built upon falsehoods. The beast has always lived in Bethlehem and every other centre for the supernatural, embracing their brands of sacred ignorance.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately, other stories in the public eye are more complex, such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit. Politicians, leaders, who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. We may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians.
No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However, there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.
[/quote]

There will always be problems to deal with, living life is problematic, only death is no problem. When one bases one's morality on the commonness of our biological nature and what supports its security and well-being. We have a formula here for transforming the context/s around us based upon biology. Context does define, and even our present circumstances of moral relativism/chaos are the biological extension of an irrational past. With a focus on the proper subject of morality, we can consciously create our biological extensions/contexts to fit the needs of our common humanity. Kant thought that morality should be based upon universal principles. I suggest that our common biology is the home base for such thinking.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

What about the point that logic is fixed, rigid and universal while morality is changeable, fluid and relative? Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Now all we need are a few actual accounts of how this distinction is made existentially. Morality is controversial because for thousands of years now philosophers and ethicists have failed to provide mere mortals in a No God world with anything approaching a deontological moral philosophy. The only thing truly controversial about it, in my view, is how the moral objectivists themselves refuse to acknowledge how that they are but one of hundreds of additional advocates all championing the one and the only true path to enlightenment. I'm the first to acknowledge that moral nihilism is no less a subjective assessment on my part. It seems reasonable to me here and now but then so did a half dozen additional "my way or the highway" dogmas I embraced and embodied in years past.

And while logic can be used to express accounts of human moral interactions, that's hardly the same thing as insisting -- and then demonstrating -- that your own moral philosophy reflects the most logical account that mere mortals in a No God world are able to sustain socially, politically and economically.

Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Okay, for those who basically agree with this, note how, given your own personal experiences involving conflicting goods, this was/is applicable to the behaviors you chose/choose. And noting that morality is universal is merely a way of pointing out that when men and women do come together to form communities, "rules of behavior" are a must. Prescriptions and proscriptions used to either reward or punish particular behaviors. Then the part where all of this is embedded in one or another intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law.

I won’t rehearse the usual criticisms of moral relativism, subjectivism, emotivism, etc.; suffice it to say that morality is really a subject in objectively good standing. Also, logic is not free of internal strife: some find modal logic suspect, others favor intuitionistic logic, still others adopt a highly inclusive conception of logic (even accepting logical contradictions). Not much in human thought is not controversial in some way.

Again, whichever assessment of logic you prefer, note how for all practical purposes it either works or does not work to sustain your own interactions with others.

[iambiguous]

   I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting.

 

Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."
What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions? Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?

In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their own dogmas.

Morality based upon our common human biology is rational because it is the most immediate of our experiences, and common to species. We know what experiencing a particular in nature is like compared to that of another. Another point we should not lose sight of is how morality for others comes about. If one does not recognize the self in another creature, compassion does not arise; compassion is the essence of morality and morality is the essence of society. It is so elemental and so obvious to me that I find its non-acceptance mind-boggling. We all speak the same emotional language unless one happens to be a psychopath.

Okay, in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular interest to you, note what you construe to be the most rational, logical, deontological and compassionate assessment.
 
In regard to abortion, for example, some people focus their compassion solely around the unborn while others insist that compassion should revolve instead around a woman who is forced to give birth against her wishes. 

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it. After all, objective morality, immortality, and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind.

You pointing this out just underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

Okay, but any number of secular assessments from these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

...involve no supernatural elements. Yet, again, these clearly biological men and women clash ferociously over and over again [down through the ages historically and around the world culturally] regarding what is said to be the most rational, logical and compassionate human behaviors. 

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment?

As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion given the existential parameters of our lived lives.

Optimal value judgment would be self-interest, where you identify yourself with the self in others, allowing compassion to arise for all concerned, and biases fall by the way. How much saner do you think this approach is, compared to counting on a multitude of differing gods to hand down their judgments?

Theoretically? Because given human interactions to date here on planet Earth, that's the only way, in my view, it has ever been pulled off. 

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.
Morality and sanity?

Do you mean the process of thinking?

As I see it, there's what you think in your head is true about morality, and there's what you are able to demonstrate is in fact true for all reasonable men and women. One moral conflagration at a time?

In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? 

That would be someone not basing their morality on our common biology. By the way, our objective reality is a subjective experience.

Again, that's what many moral objectivists among us insist. The particularly ferocious "my way or else" dogmatists here --  https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora --  for example. 

And while all of our experiences are derived from an individual's subjective frame of mind, that doesn't mean that those interactions in the either/or world are not able to be demonstrated objectively. Here, it seems, you have to suggest the possibility of sim worlds or dream worlds or the matrix.

[popeye1945]

   I didn't say acknowledging biology, its well-being, and security as the foundation of morality would be trouble-free. Distinguishing which biology has priority over another is a major conflict. Degrees of suffering one over another is another hair that needs splitting. [/ quote]

Hair splitting: "characterized by or fond of small and over fine distinctions."
What does that really have to do with demonstrating how and why your own assessment of human morality, if shared by others, will, over time, result in more rational and virtuous human interactions? Is this what you are arguing above? As, say, a deontologist might put it?

With a morality based upon our common biology, we feel we know what it would be like to be in any given situation through the very real expanded concept of the self. This expanded concept of the self, identifying oneself in the self of another, is the only way to increase compassion in the world. To live is to suffer. This is common to all life forms, for there are many forms but only one essence, a common life, and our common carbon-based biology. In a hodgepodge way, the essence of what we attempt today is, in a confused manner, attributing morality to sources other than our very being. It is our basic reality that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, so why would anyone think that a system of morality is not biologically based? Folly is in not recognizing that biology is the only source of meaning, and minimizing suffering is the target goal of biological morality.


In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their dogmas.

What you say is somewhat true; the difference would be in the amount of compassion in one's judgments or evaluations if one saw in the other one's self. One question one might ask is, are my judgments or actions likely to create more or less suffering in the world? This should not be difficult to do unless one is a psychopath. It would seem silly to ask someone whose basis of morality is religious supernatural illusions to suddenly recognize their contributions to the chaos.

Morality based upon our common human biology is rational because it is the most immediate of our experiences, and common to all species. We know what experiencing a particular is like compared to that of another. Another point we should not lose sight of is how morality for others comes about. If one does not recognize the self in another creature, compassion does not arise; compassion is the essence of morality and morality is the essence of society. It is so elemental and so obvious to me that I find its non-acceptance mind-boggling. We all speak the same emotional language unless one happens to be a psychopath.

Okay, in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular interest to you, note what you construe to be the most rational, logical, deontological, and compassionate assessment. In regard to abortion, for example, some people focus their compassion solely around the unborn while others insist that compassion should revolve instead around a woman who is forced to give birth against her wishes. [/quote]

The question is which of the two subjects is more likely to suffer from the decision made. Remember that all life is suffering; if you are to live, you will know suffering. Does a fetus suffer, or do fetuses suffer compared to the suffering of a mature woman? Remember you are the source of all meanings, biology being the measure and meaning of all things. Your decision decides the level of suffering experienced by the biologies in question.  

Religion serves best as a community, rather than a guide to morality. At present it does community damage by stifling free thought, crippling the intellect, and appealing to the dumbest common denominator.

On the other hand, we all know that any number of these folks insist their denomination [and only their denomination] is justified in stifling thoughts that aren't in sync with their own enlightened truths. And if the intellect has to be crippled in order to achieve this, so be it. After all, objective morality, immortality, and salvation are at stake. For many here, souls themselves are either saved or left behind.

You address the chaos created by believing that morality comes from a supernatural source, and the embrace of irrationality as sacred knowledge. This would be eliminated with the recognition that biological being is the only source of meaning, the only source of compassion, and the source of morality.

You pointing this out underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

Okay, but any number of secular assessments from these folks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies ...involve no supernatural elements. Yet, again, these clearly biological men and women clash ferociously over and over again [down through the ages historically and around the world culturally] regarding what is said to be the most rational, logical, and compassionate human behaviors. [/quote]

Yes, good point, but also to be understood or misunderstood on a biological level, for politics like religion are biological extensions of the psyche of humanity. Politics are less clouded than religion in its nature without supernatural intervention, but not entirely, for many wars have been fought over religion when human self-interest and greed were the true motivations, with God on our side.

The major problem with abortion is that the church expounds that abortion is a sin, while the gods of all denominations specialize in abortion on a grand scale. In today's world, recognizing biology as the foundation of morality is common sense. If there were not so many interests invested in muddying the waters of clarity, it would be a much saner world. There are many things to consider with the thinking of legal and free abortions, does the health and well-being of a fetus come before that of an adult, rational, feeling woman? Does the welfare of rational feeling women come before the welfare of the larger society? The subject is biology and its joys and sufferings; that should be profoundly clear.

So, what are you suggesting, that while human biology is the foundation for human morality here, you are not able to provide us with a frame of mind that would reflect the optimal value judgment? Let alone provide us with the only truly rational assessment? As for the biological parameters here, where is the optimal assessment from biologists themselves as to when the unborn are deemed to be human beings? Instead, I presume that each of us as individuals will come to react as we do to the morality of abortion, given the existential parameters of our lived lives. [/quote]

Optimal value judgment would be self-interest, where you identify yourself with the self in others, allowing compassion to arise for all concerned, and biases fall by the way. How much saner do you think this approach is, compared to counting on a multitude of differing gods to hand down their judgments?

Theoretically? Because given human interactions to date here on planet Earth, that's the only way, in my view, it has ever been pulled off. [/quote]

What do you mean by pull off? Do you mean that morality based on the supernatural has been successful? I could point out that throughout history, it has not been a game changer.

I am an Idealist, but this proposal is just common sense. and obvious to all who come to see through the murky waters of old mythologies and individual self-righteousness. With the present hodgepodge mix of global mythologies, cultural differences, and values, the global village is in chaos, whichwhat moral relativism is. A realization or even a mythology that guides the global village in this would be what brings sanity to a cruel and chaotic world.

Just another "general description philosophical assessment" from my frame of mind.
Morality and sanity? [/quote]

Insanity might be the lack of behaviours beneficial to the security and well-being of the individual and the individual nation applying it to themselves rather than humanity at large. Presently, there is a shifting of power in the world. Much of the world wishes to see the end of colonialism and empire. A world of cooperating nations rather than violent exploitation. This is recognizing our human commonality and a social evolutionary step for humanity.

Do you mean the process of thinking?

As I see it, there's what you think in your head is true about morality, and there's what you are able to demonstrate is in fact true for all reasonable men and women. One moral conflagration at a time? In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? [/quote]

I do not understand your meaning here. Do you mean that the agreement would indicate widespread insanity?

That would be someone not basing their morality on our common biology. By the way, our objective reality is a subjective experience.

Again, that's what many moral objectivists among us insist. The particularly ferocious "my way or else" dogmatists here --  https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora --  for example. And while all of our experiences are derived from an individual's subjective frame of mind, that doesn't mean that those interactions in the either/or world are not able to be demonstrated objectively. Here, it seems, you have to suggest the possibility of sim worlds or dream worlds or the matrix. [/quote]

Do you believe that morality is objective? The my way or the highway is deemed criminal if not behaving within the context of society's morals and standards by law. Society is formed by individuals commonly acknowledging the security and well-being that their agreement provides each individual. It would make perfect sense to extend that thinking globally, recognizing the commonality of all humanity. The objective is the subjective content expressed in the outside world as human extensions, whether systems, institutions, or ideas and concepts concretised. You need to do something about your post's format, as it was difficult to respond properly. I have no idea what happened here, are you seeing my post in the color of blue? Add thought: Do you not realize that whatever you wish to place as a foundation of morality, it is still a biological extension of your psyche. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Belinda]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust. Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much rarer.

Knowing good is that which supports the well-being and security of humanity. This is simpler and straightforward compared to the confusion generated by multiple cultures and their gods embracing little to nothing of our commonality. "Knowing good when we see it is much more difficult." That is because of the confusion generated by beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and the cultural norms and institutions built upon falsehoods. The beast has always lived in Bethlehem and every other centre for the supernatural, embracing their brands of sacred ignorance.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately, other stories in the public eye are more complex, such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit. Politicians, leaders, who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. We may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians.
No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However, there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.
[/quote]

There will always be problems to deal with, living life is problematic, only death is no problem. When one bases one's morality on the commonness of our biological nature and what supports its security and well-being. We have a formula here for transforming the context/s around us based upon biology. Context does define, and even our present circumstances of moral relativism/chaos are the biological extension of an irrational past. With a focus on the proper subject of morality, we can consciously create our biological extensions/contexts to fit the needs of our common humanity. Kant thought that morality should be based upon universal principles. I suggest that our common biology is the home base for such thinking.
[/quote]

Popeye, you frequently claim morality is based on biology. Would you not consider instead that morality is based on human nature? I think that by 'biology"' you really mean to refer to 'human nature'.
Did you read Godelian's link to the Al Jazeera story about the finances of The Vatican? Here we have a clear illustration of human nature at its worst. Francis had a fight on his hands against the worst of human nature, now Leo has picked up the spear. We await Leo's sword and chariot of fire.

[iambiguous]

In my view, human pain and suffering often revolved [still revolves, and probably ever will revolve] around those who insist their own value judgments are in sync with the objective [God or No God] truth. Though if you're lucky, you'll bump into those moral, political and religious objectivists who don't append "or else" to their dogmas.

   What you say is somewhat true; the difference would be in the amount of compassion in one's judgments or evaluations if one saw in the other one's self. One question one might ask is, are my judgments or actions likely to create more or less suffering in the world? This should not be difficult to do unless one is a psychopath. It would seem silly to ask someone whose basis of morality is religious supernatural illusions to suddenly recognize their contributions to the chaos.

Okay, how much compassion should we apportion to the fetus, shredded in an abortion, compared to the compassion afforded women who are forced to give birth? And in some jurisdictions risk arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing to death row for premeditated murder of a human being? Biology revolves around both of them. But what is the optimal assessment? What ought the law of the land be in regard to abortion given what you construe to be the most biologically rational resolution. 

Thus... 

Okay, in regard to a moral conflagration that is of particular interest to you, note what you construe to be the most rational, logical, deontological, and compassionate assessment. In regard to abortion, for example, some people focus their compassion solely around the unborn while others insist that compassion should revolve instead around a woman who is forced to give birth against her wishes.

The question is which of the two subjects is more likely to suffer from the decision made. Remember that all life is suffering; if you are to live, you will know suffering. Does a fetus suffer, or do fetuses suffer compared to the suffering of a mature woman? Remember you are the source of all meanings, biology being the measure and meaning of all things. Your decision decides the level of suffering experienced by the biologies in question.

Shouldn't all of this be subsumed in your own set of philosophical assumptions regarding morality and abortion? Otherwise we remain embedded in a world where any number of men and women -- biological creatures all -- insist their own [and only their own] moral and political prejudices reflect the most rational/virtuous denouement.

You pointing this out underlines how divisive supernatural religion is in creating chaos or morality relativism.

Okay, but any number of secular assessments from these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies 

...involve no supernatural elements. Yet, again, these clearly biological men and women clash ferociously over and over again [down through the ages historically and around the world culturally] regarding what is said to be the most rational, logical, and compassionate human behaviors. 

Yes, good point, but also to be understood or misunderstood on a biological level, for politics like religion are biological extensions of the psyche of humanity. Politics are less clouded than religion in its nature without supernatural intervention, but not entirely, for many wars have been fought over religion when human self-interest and greed were the true motivations, with God on our side.

Of course, the religionists among us are quick to point out how the fiercely secular "my way or the highway" ideologues -- Nazis, Communists, the amoral "show me the money" global capitalists, etc. -- have sustained their own killing fields.

Do you mean the process of thinking?

As I see it, there's what you think in your head is true about morality, and there's what you are able to demonstrate is in fact true for all reasonable men and women. One moral conflagration at a time? In other words, from the perspective of the truly hardcore moral objectivists among us, if you don't think exactly like they do about the morality of abortion, how sane can you be? 

 I do not understand your meaning here. Do you mean that the agreement would indicate widespread insanity?

No, I mean that given any number of conflicting moral perspectives among any number of conflicted moral objectivists here, the objectivists themselves insist that only their own frame of mind reflects the sanest assessment. Though, okay, sure, they might not see those who reject their own dogmas as insane...but they are certainly deemed to be wrong regarding their own moral convictions.

In my view, you go on and on about the "commonalities" we share given that we are all biological entities. And I go on and on regarding the manner in which, in my view, existentially, moral convictions are derived intersubjectively -- historically, culturally, experientially -- from dasein in my signature threads. 

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Skeptics of the normative will object to “ought” in both logic and morality, but that simply underlines the affinity of the two areas. The essential point is that both logic and morality are normative systems designed to facilitate desirable outcomes; and both admit of a degree of formal articulation rooted in intuitive human faculties.

On the other hand, if the affinity above revolves around one or another rendition of moral objectivism, we have to confront the fact there are dozens and dozens of ofttimes conflicting assessments of alleged One True Paths here. God or No God, many claim to embody the font [the only font] for achieving the best of all possible worlds. And some will insist this is applicable to both sides of the grave.

Still, if there is anyone here convinced their own moral philosophy reflects the optimal frame of mind, let them note particular interactions between themselves and others such that they attempt to note this affinity existentially. After all, who gets to decide what the most desirable outcome is in regard to the abortion wars?

We can all agree (if we are sane) that pain is bad and everything is identical to itself: why one should be assigned exclusively to something called “logic” and the other to something called “morality” is obscure. Both are self-evident propositions capable of functioning as axioms in a train of reasoning: the affinity is more obvious than the difference.

Of course, here those on both sides of any number of moral and political conflagrations will insist their own dogmas reflect, what, the least of all possible pain? And, again, what is the affinity between those on both sides of, say, the gun control issue? The part where both sides have their own renditions of morality and logic.

You should keep your promises and not be cruel; you should existentially generalize and not affirm the consequent. Where exactly is the deep difference here?

Keep your promises regarding what? Promises made to those who embrace MAGA, or promises made to those who are fighting them? Promises made to the Nazis or promises made to those they intend to eradicate?

As for this...

And this is before we get to non-standard logics like modal logic, epistemic logic, indexical logic, and deontic logic. They are all about reasoning and validity—but so is morality about reasoning and validity. If morality is about moral reasons, it is about moral reasoning: but then it is a logical enterprise. Logic is capacious enough to subsume morality, being the general theory of sound reasoning.

...what on Earth does it mean given a moral conflagration of note "in the news"?

What I would appreciate are those here who basically subscribe to these theoretical assumptions and are willing to note how existentially they play out when confronting others who have accumulated conflicting sets of assumptions.

[popeye1945]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust. Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much rarer.

Knowing good is that which supports the well-being and security of humanity. This is simpler and straightforward compared to the confusion generated by multiple cultures and their gods embracing little to nothing of our commonality. "Knowing good when we see it is much more difficult." That is because of the confusion generated by beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and the cultural norms and institutions built upon falsehoods. The beast has always lived in Bethlehem and every other centre for the supernatural, embracing their brands of sacred ignorance.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately, other stories in the public eye are more complex, such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit. Politicians, leaders, who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. We may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians. No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However, there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.

There will always be problems to deal with, living life is problematic, only death is no problem. When one bases one's morality on the commonness of our biological nature and what supports its security and well-being. We have a formula here for transforming the context/s around us based upon biology. Context does define, and even our present circumstances of moral relativism/chaos are the biological extension of an irrational past. With a focus on the proper subject of morality, we can consciously create our biological extensions/contexts to fit the needs of our common humanity. Kant thought that morality should be based upon universal principles. I suggest that our common biology is the home base for such thinking.
[/quote]

Popeye, you frequently claim morality is based on biology. Would you not consider instead that morality is based on human nature? I think that by 'biology"' you really mean to refer to 'human nature'.
Did you read Godelian's link to the Al Jazeera story about the finances of The Vatican? Here we have a clear illustration of human nature at its worst. Francis had a fight on his hands against the worst of human nature, now Leo has picked up the spear. We await Leo's sword and chariot of fire.
[/quote]

Morality-based biology is morality based on human nature; they are one and the same thing. There is only one source of all meaningful things, biological consciousness; there is no other source. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and their only source, which consciousness then bestows upon a meaningless world. Remember, apparent reality is a biological readout, an interpretation of the things that alter one's standing biology. This is the way you come to know a world at all. Biology is also the only source of identifying with other, and thus the rise of compassion, the rise of compassion is the foundation of morality and society. Morality is not based upon systems and structures they but carry the message of biological subjects as their extensions.

[Belinda]

Only Jesus Christ of myth was perfectly moral. Some of us are more moral than others . What is the universal criterion by which we judge quality of morality? Since 1940 a popular major criterion has been the Holocaust. Let's look around the news media to see from where Yeats's Rough Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born in 2025. All the many localities. It's not hard is it ---- we know evil when we see it. Knowing good when we see it is much rarer.

Knowing good is that which supports the well-being and security of humanity. This is simpler and straightforward compared to the confusion generated by multiple cultures and their gods embracing little to nothing of our commonality. "Knowing good when we see it is much more difficult." That is because of the confusion generated by beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and the cultural norms and institutions built upon falsehoods. The beast has always lived in Bethlehem and every other centre for the supernatural, embracing their brands of sacred ignorance.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately, other stories in the public eye are more complex, such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit. Politicians, leaders, who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. We may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians. No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However, there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.

There will always be problems to deal with, living life is problematic, only death is no problem. When one bases one's morality on the commonness of our biological nature and what supports its security and well-being. We have a formula here for transforming the context/s around us based upon biology. Context does define, and even our present circumstances of moral relativism/chaos are the biological extension of an irrational past. With a focus on the proper subject of morality, we can consciously create our biological extensions/contexts to fit the needs of our common humanity. Kant thought that morality should be based upon universal principles. I suggest that our common biology is the home base for such thinking.

Popeye, you frequently claim morality is based on biology. Would you not consider instead that morality is based on human nature? I think that by 'biology"' you really mean to refer to 'human nature'.
Did you read Godelian's link to the Al Jazeera story about the finances of The Vatican? Here we have a clear illustration of human nature at its worst. Francis had a fight on his hands against the worst of human nature, now Leo has picked up the spear. We await Leo's sword and chariot of fire.
[/quote]

Morality-based biology is morality based on human nature; they are one and the same thing. There is only one source of all meaningful things, biological consciousness; there is no other source. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and their only source, which consciousness then bestows upon a meaningless world. Remember, apparent reality is a biological readout, an interpretation of the things that alter one's standing biology. This is the way you come to know a world at all. Biology is also the only source of identifying with other, and thus the rise of compassion, the rise of compassion is the foundation of morality and society. Morality is not based upon systems and structures they but carry the message of biological subjects as their extensions.
[/quote]
Biology is too broad to be much help. Biology includes mice, vegetables, bacteria, fungi , and so on. Only humans are a problem to themselves , but other life forms aren't bothered about abstract stuff such as morality. Yes, without life we could not be aware of morality and a lot more. Having taken that fact on board, we can proceed to fine it down to human nature that is problematic.

[popeye1945]

Knowing good is that which supports the well-being and security of humanity. This is simpler and straightforward compared to the confusion generated by multiple cultures and their gods embracing little to nothing of our commonality. "Knowing good when we see it is much more difficult." That is because of the confusion generated by beliefs that have no foundation in reality, and the cultural norms and institutions built upon falsehoods. The beast has always lived in Bethlehem and every other centre for the supernatural, embracing their brands of sacred ignorance.

Biology is not a criterion. Some people are mentally/morally deficient like the men who destroyed the Sycamore Gap tree: the story is iconic. Unfortunately, other stories in the public eye are more complex, such as vandalism by people who are not mentally deficient but who do vandalism for personal profit. Politicians, leaders, who fail to even to discern the greatest good of the greatest number are failing to be good. We may hold Utilitarianism to be the right good for politicians. No, morals are not deontological but relate to circumstances. However, there are virtues such as courage, happiness, honesty, generosity, sympathy, hospitality, and so forth that more frequently than not occur as a clump of good criteria in many sets of circumstances.

There will always be problems to deal with, living life is problematic, only death is no problem. When one bases one's morality on the commonness of our biological nature and what supports its security and well-being. We have a formula here for transforming the context/s around us based upon biology. Context does define, and even our present circumstances of moral relativism/chaos are the biological extension of an irrational past. With a focus on the proper subject of morality, we can consciously create our biological extensions/contexts to fit the needs of our common humanity. Kant thought that morality should be based upon universal principles. I suggest that our common biology is the home base for such thinking.

Popeye, you frequently claim morality is based on biology. Would you not consider instead that morality is based on human nature? I think that by 'biology"' you really mean to refer to 'human nature'.
Did you read Godelian's link to the Al Jazeera story about the finances of The Vatican? Here we have a clear illustration of human nature at its worst. Francis had a fight on his hands against the worst of human nature, now Leo has picked up the spear. We await Leo's sword and chariot of fire.

Morality-based biology is morality based on human nature; they are one and the same thing. There is only one source of all meaningful things, biological consciousness; there is no other source. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and their only source, which consciousness then bestows upon a meaningless world. Remember, apparent reality is a biological readout, an interpretation of the things that alter one's standing biology. This is the way you come to know a world at all. Biology is also the only source of identifying with other, and thus the rise of compassion, the rise of compassion is the foundation of morality and society. Morality is not based upon systems and structures they but carry the message of biological subjects as their extensions.
[/quote]

Biology is too broad to be much help. Biology includes mice, vegetables, bacteria, fungi , and so on. Only humans are a problem to themselves , but other life forms aren't bothered about abstract stuff such as morality. Yes, without life we could not be aware of morality and a lot more. Having taken that fact on board, we can proceed to fine it down to human nature that is problematic.
[/quote]

No, it is not too broad a topic. We are all in this together. You are distantly related to every living thing on the planet, as far as the supernatural source of morality goes. Darwin killed God in 1859 with the publication of" The Origin of Species. The difference between you and your animal cousins is not in type but in degrees; life is consciousness, and consciousness is life. You need, I believe, to shake off, if it applies, the bias of being of a higher nature than the rest of our animal relatives. If you believe in the supernatural as a source of human morality, I suggest you are at least once removed from reality. One can see in nature the workings of morality in animal groups/packs and even city gangs. It truly is one common biology. Perhaps many would like, when seeing this, to call it rules of behaviour or some other diversion from facing reality; it is less complex, but it is morality in a lesser degree. The Upanishads: The Self in One is the Self in all." Even religions hit the target sometimes. The reason most organisms form societies is the same across the board: greater security and well-being, and societies serve as survival mechanisms. Living together in societies is problematic, but more so if one does not embrace the reality of the human condition or the organism's condition within its reality. It is inescapable that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and that each organism is the centre of the universe.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Recognizing the affinity is helpful in resisting certain deforming conceptions of moral language and thought. Emotivism, prescriptivism, naturalism, psychologism, non-cognitivism, Platonism, contractualism: are any of these remotely plausible when applied to logic?

From my frame of mind, "resisting certain deforming conceptions of moral language and thought" revolves first and foremost around the assumption that in a No God world the optimal assessment of any particular behaviors is rooted existentially in dasein. Unless, of course, someone here can connect the dots between logic and morality pertaining to a moral conflagration we are all likely to be familiar with. Why my set of assumptions and not yours or theirs? After all, given all of the "isms" that are involved here what are the odds that your own comes closest to whatever the most rational/logical/epistemologically sound assessment of human morality actually is.

People have toyed with such accounts of logic, but generally they have not found favor, so why should we seriously entertain them for morality? Moral discourse is like logical discourse—objective and normative—and should be treated as such. It is what it is and not some other thing.

Right. Let's run that by the moral objectivists here. 

In other words, "let mere mortals toy with all of the other 'my way or the highway' accounts of morality but not with our own."   

Then, for some, this part: "Or else".

Thus its similarity to logic can work to legitimize it and avoid procrustean and reductive reinterpretations. Notably, the difficulty of finding justificatory foundations applies to both areas—some things just have to be taken for granted (pain just is bad, modus ponens just is correct).

You tell me. After all, if the pain is being inflicted on those who are intent on inflicting pain on us...? 

Modus ponens: "the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred."

Let's bring this down out of the didactic clouds and note how it is applicable given particular circumstantial contexts swirling about conflicting goods.

There's the pain inflicted on a family when one of them is murdered. Then the pain inflicted on the family of the convict when he or she is executed.
 
Then [from my frame of mind] just more of the same "analytic" jargon...

And in so far as logic should not be construed as a descriptive science of the platonic realm but as a normative system of rules of correct reasoning, so morality should not be thought of as describing the Good but as a normative system of rules of right action. If we cleave to the logical analogy, we can steer our way through dubious assimilations and deformations.

Again, existentially, how is this pertinent "for all practical purposes" given your own close encounters with conflicting goods? If this seems reasonable to you, note more specifically why and how you came to embody it "normatively". 

Just to simplify matters, I recommend that we assert outright that morality is logic (part of it anyway): that way we have a neat antidote to various bad ideas about morality. This does not remove all philosophical questions about morality, but it raises the right kinds of questions. Logic, too, raises real philosophical questions, both metaphysical and epistemological, but these questions are the right ones to raise concerning morality.

Then those who basically argue, "just to simplify things, and in order to minimize bad ideas about morality, you will need to become 'one of us'".

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Morality, we might say, has a logical structure—and a logical role. It functions logically. Logicism is true of it (“moral logicism”).

One might say this, but it's not the same as describing how this logical structure actually plays out for all practical purposes given a moral conflagration of note.

Unless, perhaps, someone here can provide us with an assessment of how their own logical structure  -- logical thinking -- enabled them to make what they deem to be the most rational set of behaviors. 

But I also think that logic needs to shed its antiseptic image and confess to its normative heart: it is really about how we should reason, what good reasoning is.

 

On the other hand, this article avoids bringing these assumptions down out of the philosophical clouds. What is McGinn's own "logical structure" in regard to conflicts revolving around abortion, and guns and human sexuality?

So, by all means, if you share his own didactic assumptions here...

To be sure, we can treat logical systems formally, as mathematical objects; but the thrust of logic is prescriptive and critical—evaluative. It is concerned with a certain human value (viz. good reasoning), and therefore naturally belongs with morality. It is part of “value theory”. Accordingly, it belongs with such practices as praise and blame, conscience and shame, reward and punishment, respect and disrespect. An illogical person is not a moral person; irrationality is a vice. Moral goodness and logical goodness are inseparable attributes, seamlessly connected; indeed, we shouldn’t even speak in such disparate terms. The distinction between logic and morality is an untenable dualism, an artificial separation.

...please describe in some detail how this all plays out existentially when you yourself have been or are now embedded in a situation in which others challenged your own moral philosophy and your own behaviors.

The bottom line [mine] is that in regard to such things as "praise and blame, conscience and shame. reward and punishment, respect and disrespect", the deontologists have failed miserably in providing us with the sort of "logical structure" that actually makes the conflicts go away. 

[Belinda]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

Morality, we might say, has a logical structure—and a logical role. It functions logically. Logicism is true of it (“moral logicism”).

One might say this, but it's not the same as describing how this logical structure actually plays out for all practical purposes given a moral conflagration of note.

Unless, perhaps, someone here can provide us with an assessment of how their own logical structure  -- logical thinking -- enabled them to make what they deem to be the most rational set of behaviors. 

But I also think that logic needs to shed its antiseptic image and confess to its normative heart: it is really about how we should reason, what good reasoning is.

 

On the other hand, this article avoids bringing these assumptions down out of the philosophical clouds. What is McGinn's own "logical structure" in regard to conflicts revolving around abortion, and guns and human sexuality?

So, by all means, if you share his own didactic assumptions here...

To be sure, we can treat logical systems formally, as mathematical objects; but the thrust of logic is prescriptive and critical—evaluative. It is concerned with a certain human value (viz. good reasoning), and therefore naturally belongs with morality. It is part of “value theory”. Accordingly, it belongs with such practices as praise and blame, conscience and shame, reward and punishment, respect and disrespect. An illogical person is not a moral person; irrationality is a vice. Moral goodness and logical goodness are inseparable attributes, seamlessly connected; indeed, we shouldn’t even speak in such disparate terms. The distinction between logic and morality is an untenable dualism, an artificial separation.

...please describe in some detail how this all plays out existentially when you yourself have been or are now embedded in a situation in which others challenged your own moral philosophy and your own behaviors.

The bottom line [mine] is that in regard to such things as "praise and blame, conscience and shame. reward and punishment, respect and disrespect", the deontologists have failed miserably in providing us with the sort of "logical structure" that actually makes the conflicts go away. 

I agree deontologists have failed.

The logical heart of a person is found by asking them 'with whom or what do your sympathies lie?'

Answers will vary. Some answers will be:

* my children and aged parent

*my extended family and tribe

* my country, my native land

* animals everywhere

* truth seekers everywhere

* my home

* planet Earth

* children everywhere

*
my co-religionists

* my political party

* my life's work and creativity

* my own race of people

The human quest for what is good is the search for a criterion that sorts all of the above , and more, into good and bad. Out of my brief list of examples that criterion is plain to see . The word 'my' is the clue to whether the moral criterion is universal or not.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour.

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.... If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives.” Charles Darwin

Of course, up in the philosophical clouds, describing "acts for the good of others" can precipitate all manner conflicting assessments of what [technically, theoretically, deontologically, etc.] good means for each of us reacting to the context in which this is discussed and debated. But this sort of complexity actually pales significantly next to the part where the theoretical constructs collide existentially given all manner of value judgment collisions.

And then the part where this frame of mind is reconciled [if it can be] with survival of the fittest: the dog-eat-dog law of the jungle.

The above quote, taken from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, addresses a central issue in the ongoing debate between science and religion: How does one best understand the origins of human morality?

Really, how hard can that be to grasp? Human morality revolves around conflicting assessments of how to sustain human interactions when wants and needs collide. "Rules of behavior" are basically just common sense in my view. Instead, the tricky part here comes about when, in any given human community, these rules reflect various combinations of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law. This and the fact that ethicists and political scientists are themselves often all over the map...all up and down the moral and political spectrum. And that's before we get to the part about God and religion.

There is still a popular assumption that religion and morality are synonymous. This is not surprising, since almost everyone is raised within some type of religious community, which teaches various rules for how to act, and sanctions these rules by claiming they were created by a deity.

That and the part whereby, even among the flocks of sheep, there are endless squabbles [and sometimes outright jihads] regarding what it actually means to be one of the truly faithful. Then the or else part where deemed necessary..

What I tend to note here, however, is that only through God and religion is immortality and salvation within reach.

This so-called ‘Divine Command Theory’ of morality has had many prominent defenders. And yet, it is by no means self-evident that our sense of right and wrong, and the codes of behavior we are expected to follow, come from a supernatural source. The following analysis will criticize the claim that morality comes from and is sanctioned by a deity or deities, and will present a naturalistic alternative view regarding the origins of our moral sense.

Again, however, it does seem self-evident that "naturalistic" alternatives are still today no less embedded in a fierce battleground between those deemed "one of us" and those deemed "one of them".

[popeye1945]

Morality is logically based upon the survival and well-being of biological subjects. Morality is self-interest, singular, and an expanded concept of the self when it applies to the functioning of numerous selves within society. If morality were based upon biology, there would be no moral relativism across a common biology, much confusion would be eliminated.