A fresh approach to morality

[MikeNovack]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human. In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals. While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

[Immanuel Can]

While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

Well, the fact that humans are the only "social animals" that have a sense of abstract moral obligation would put a severe cramp in any explanation that depends on us being "social animals." It would surely imply that the fact of being "social animals" isn't any part of the explanation for why we are moral beings. For it would make it very obvious that we could have been fully "social" and yet not be expected to rise above any other "animals."

For example, chimps, which are fully "social animals" and cannot survive without being that prey upon and devour rival monkey troups, and there's no moral fault implied in that they do. It puts the burden of proof on us: why should we be forbidden to, say, murder in cold blood, or cannabalize, or practice heirarchical and forcible "mating" behaviour, when our alleged "nearest animal cousins" do just that, free from moral judgment.

It's on us to explain the difference. And whatever it is, it's not that we are "social animals" They are, too. And it's not that we "cannot survive without morality," because they survive...even if we could establish that "surviving" is a morally-required act (which, of course, we cannot, without some reference to something beyond these factors).

[FlashDangerpants]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human.

OK, but moral oughts are not the same as prudential oughts, or goal derived oughts in general. So a bait and switch to something like a prudential ought based on the need to live in cooperative societies won't work out.

Eventually there's a question that you have to find an answer for: why ought we do the morally right thing rather than act entirely selfishly? None of these alternatives is going to get you a direct answer and they tend to end up arguing that it is good to be moral because otherwise people won't trust each other and that's bad - the sort of argument that often goes in some sort of circle.

In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals. While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

I guess you are kind of new and perhaps have come to wonder how IC sticks so obstinately to such absurd arguments. Perhaps you are imagining that if you rephrase your own argument in away he cannot meaningfully dispute he can be brought to see reason? I wouldn't recommend ever bothering to contort your own argument to work around IC. He isn't going to become a decent man who argues in good faith for you, nor will he ever become a competent philosopher.

Sometimes it is interesting to see how far he will go in pursuit of a bad argument, and how badly he will debase himself to sort of save face even through ritual self-humiliation. But the result can only serve to undermine your faith in humanity.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

This is usually a kicking off point for Evolutionary Debunking Arguments for moral anti-realism. I should warn you that IC cannot distinguish between variations in these things and explicitly believes that all versions of moral anti-realism are "boo-hooray" emotivism. So if you are planning to go any direction other than that, you will find it a strangely difficult conversation to have.

I should point out that sympathy, empathy, and a basic sense of fairness are not uniquely human traits, all sorts of other social animals display an awareness of such things. It should be fairly simple to get any reasonable interlocutor to accept that the basic building blocks of moral sentiment are widely distributed beyond human society. How to construct moral reason from moral sentiment is not an easy question though.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human. In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals. While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

Morality begins with what and how we pay attention.

Even the values that give foundation to morality are the result of our attention to them, both to maintain them and to transform reality according to said value.

Morality is rooted in attention.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human. In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals.

It would seem to me that you're trying to place the cart before the horse. Herds and schools, otherwise known as shoals, as an example, do so to try and escape predation. Since the beginning of our time, humans have done the same thing. Sometimes known as cannibals, mobs, cultures, tribes, towns, cities, countries, armies, wars, and M.A.D.. The old safety in numbers thing, also known as POWER, which when seemingly absolute, corrupts absolutely. And of course the bravery of being out of range. Though we may call it being social, the ugly truth is that we're users of one another. Humans tend to candy coat the truth in an attempt to disguise, so as to feel better about ourselves; plausible deniability. So not really social at all, but a rather stealthy smokescreen.

While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

[Jori]

Both humans and animals have some rationality and some sense of morality. However, animal morality is instinctive, but human morality is rational. Some morality in humans is instinctive, but instinctive human human morality is the same to that of animals.

[MikeNovack]

Please can we not take this one step at a time. Objections (like "prudential" vs "moral" WILL eventually be addressed). Instinct will NOT be addressed as it is extremely difficult for us to identify our instincts. I am certain that they are active, but probably at a low level, as tools*

IC, please do not go off the wall with silly examples. Chimpanzees or bonobos killing and eating MONKEYS is no more "murder" than you killing a cow and eating it.

Are we agreed with where we start? That humans are obligatory social animals that can only survive as members of a cooperating group. And while I believe this is also true of some non-human animals, we don't need to deal with the implications of that. For NOW, we want to consider what is NECESSARY for us humans. We will start with some "oughts that are not necessarily "moral", why we need those (for our group of critters to survive). In other words, trying to establish the necessary reality of "ought" for humans.



* For example, ONE of the characteristics of original human societies composed of individuals who all know each other. We will be looking at consequences of that. But how do you know "that person knows me" INSTINCT INVOLVED (this one discovered back when I was in uni). An eyebrow flicker you are not conscious of making nor seen except as "that person knows me". I know the immense amount of work that was needed to identify this. Usually we discover about our instincts accidentally << thus we know WHEN (at what stage) :"incest avoidance" is encoded but not the details how it later works to make "sexually unattractive", just that it does >>

[MikeNovack]

a) OK, but moral oughts are not the same as prudential oughts, or goal derived oughts in general. So a bait and switch to something like a prudential ought based on the need to live in cooperative societies won't work out.

b) I should point out that sympathy, empathy, and a basic sense of fairness are not uniquely human traits, all sorts of other social animals display an awareness of such things. It should be fairly simple to get any reasonable interlocutor to accept that the basic building blocks of moral sentiment are widely distributed beyond human society. How to construct moral reason from moral sentiment is not an easy question though.

You I want to address directly'

"a" ---- but for humans, we might later decide that "moral oughts" ARE a subset of necessary prudential oughts. For humans to continue to co-operate we might NEED morality. I just think that's the wrong place to start. If we have understanding about the properties of necessary human oughts maybe we can make sense of "the problem" << we see something that feels like it SHOULD be a moral question but cannot get there from whatever moral system we choose >>

"b: I agree with many of you that it may not make sense try to include IC. But ignoring the person, the concept of human exceptionalism is respectable (even if we believe it wrong). I'm simply suggesting that "Man is a moral animal" does not imply "Man is the only moral animal". Leave that for another day.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, please do not go off the wall with silly examples. Chimpanzees or bonobos killing and eating MONKEYS is no more "murder" than you killing a cow and eating it.

It's not a "silly example": it's a reasonable and thoughtful objection, actually. Perhaps you're missing the point. I'll try again.

If there are "social animals" that are fully "social" and fully "animals" but have no moral requirements, then it's impossible to believe that man being a "social animal" accounts for our morality. If there is any reason to assign "oughts" to human beings, then they cannot be located in any quality shared by lower animals who have no moral oughts. It must be located in something which, like morality itself, we do NOT share with such animals.

In other words, the fact of human exceptionalism faces us again. Human beings either are animals, in which case it's absurd to assign to them duties that no other animal has, or they are above the animals in some sense; but that sense in which we are above animals must be explained and accounted for.

Let's really simplify it, so the common-sensical nature of it becomes perfectly clear:

Social animals do not automatically have moral duties. (bonobos, chimps, dolphins, whatever example you wish to take)
Man is a social animal.
Therefore, man does not automatically have moral duties.

Or

Social animals do not automatically have moral duties.
Man is not just a social animal.
Therefore, man has moral duties.

And then we have to say in what way man is a special case, such that our assigning of moral duties is warranted for him, but not for other social animals.

That's the argument in its simple form.

[Age]

While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

Well, the fact that humans are the only "social animals" that have a sense of abstract moral obligation would put a severe cramp in any explanation that depends on us being "social animals." It would surely imply that the fact of being "social animals" isn't any part of the explanation for why we are moral beings. For it would make it very obvious that we could have been fully "social" and yet not be expected to rise above any other "animals."

For example, chimps, which are fully "social animals" and cannot survive without being that prey upon and devour rival monkey troups, and there's no moral fault implied in that they do. It puts the burden of proof on us: why should we be forbidden to, say, murder in cold blood, or cannabalize, or practice heirarchical and forcible "mating" behaviour, when our alleged "nearest animal cousins" do just that, free from moral judgment.

It's on us to explain the difference. And whatever it is, it's not that we are "social animals" They are, too. And it's not that we "cannot survive without morality," because they survive...even if we could establish that "surviving" is a morally-required act (which, of course, we cannot, without some reference to something beyond these factors).

It could be said and argued that survival is a morally-required act.

[Age]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human.

OK, but moral oughts are not the same as prudential oughts, or goal derived oughts in general. So a bait and switch to something like a prudential ought based on the need to live in cooperative societies won't work out.

Eventually there's a question that you have to find an answer for: why ought we do the morally right thing rather than act entirely selfishly?

The answer is because 'we' will not survive.

So, if 'we' want to keep surviving, then 'we' 'ought' to do the morally Right thing, rather than misbehave entirely selfishly.

But, if 'you' do not want to survive, then you ought not do the morally Right thing.

None of these alternatives is going to get you a direct answer and they tend to end up arguing that it is good to be moral because otherwise people won't trust each other and that's bad - the sort of argument that often goes in some sort of circle.

In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals. While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

I guess you are kind of new and perhaps have come to wonder how IC sticks so obstinately to such absurd arguments. Perhaps you are imagining that if you rephrase your own argument in away he cannot meaningfully dispute he can be brought to see reason? I wouldn't recommend ever bothering to contort your own argument to work around IC. He isn't going to become a decent man who argues in good faith for you, nor will he ever become a competent philosopher.

Sometimes it is interesting to see how far he will go in pursuit of a bad argument, and how badly he will debase himself to sort of save face even through ritual self-humiliation. But the result can only serve to undermine your faith in humanity.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

This is usually a kicking off point for Evolutionary Debunking Arguments for moral anti-realism. I should warn you that IC cannot distinguish between variations in these things and explicitly believes that all versions of moral anti-realism are "boo-hooray" emotivism. So if you are planning to go any direction other than that, you will find it a strangely difficult conversation to have.

I should point out that sympathy, empathy, and a basic sense of fairness are not uniquely human traits, all sorts of other social animals display an awareness of such things. It should be fairly simple to get any reasonable interlocutor to accept that the basic building blocks of moral sentiment are widely distributed beyond human society. How to construct moral reason from moral sentiment is not an easy question though.

[Age]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human. In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals. While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

Morality begins with what and how we pay attention.

Even the values that give foundation to morality are the result of our attention to them, both to maintain them and to transform reality according to said value.

Morality is rooted in attention.

Okay. So, as long as one is paying attention when they are raping and killing your family members, then 'this' is where morality is rooted, right?

[Immanuel Can]

While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

Well, the fact that humans are the only "social animals" that have a sense of abstract moral obligation would put a severe cramp in any explanation that depends on us being "social animals." It would surely imply that the fact of being "social animals" isn't any part of the explanation for why we are moral beings. For it would make it very obvious that we could have been fully "social" and yet not be expected to rise above any other "animals."

For example, chimps, which are fully "social animals" and cannot survive without being that prey upon and devour rival monkey troups, and there's no moral fault implied in that they do. It puts the burden of proof on us: why should we be forbidden to, say, murder in cold blood, or cannabalize, or practice heirarchical and forcible "mating" behaviour, when our alleged "nearest animal cousins" do just that, free from moral judgment.

It's on us to explain the difference. And whatever it is, it's not that we are "social animals" They are, too. And it's not that we "cannot survive without morality," because they survive...even if we could establish that "surviving" is a morally-required act (which, of course, we cannot, without some reference to something beyond these factors).

It could be said and argued that survival is a morally-required act.

I also dealt with that. How can it be asserted that we have a moral duty to survive? Nature kills species all the time. Where is the great auk? Where is the Tasmanian tiger or the passenger pidgeon? They didn't survive. Would we call them "moral failures," because they all became extinct?

In fact, "survival of the fittest" has another side to its coin: extinction of all the "unfit." So it would we argue that some people or species have a moral obligation to die, not survive? Nature itself certainly has no opinion on the question. It seems to kill some and let other species live, and with a fairly indifferent hand. So where is the evidence of a moral structure in what nature does with various species?

[Age]

It is usual, when discussing morality, to begin proposing that morality is the source of the "ought" relation, that it is morality and only morality that makes choices of action right or wrong. I propose we take a step back and consider that "ought" might be more basic, more fundamental, and a direct consequence of our being human. In other words, a consequence of us humans being social animals.

It would seem to me that you're trying to place the cart before the horse. Herds and schools, otherwise known as shoals, as an example, do so to try and escape predation. Since the beginning of our time, humans have done the same thing. Sometimes known as cannibals, mobs, cultures, tribes, towns, cities, countries, armies, wars, and M.A.D.. The old safety in numbers thing, also known as POWER, which when seemingly absolute, corrupts absolutely. And of course the bravery of being out of range. Though we may call it being social, the ugly truth is that we're users of one another. Humans tend to candy coat the truth in an attempt to disguise, so as to feel better about ourselves; plausible deniability. So not really social at all, but a rather stealthy smokescreen.

While I also believe that we humans are not the only social animals on the planet and others of us, say IC, are "human exceptionalists" (believe we are fundamentally different from other animals) we can ignore that difference of belief as long as we only consider humans.

So lets see if we agree on this starting point. We humans are social animals, can only survive in groups of humans, and this has been true longer than we properly could be thought of as human. I want us to begin HERE and have us explore what that means. So lets see if we are all in agreement so far. Everyone on board with that? Any dissent? << please, at this point JUST about this starting point >>

Imagine having the desire and the want to converse and discuss 'with others' 'your belief' that 'you' are not a social creature, and not recognizing and seeing the blatant hypocrisy and contradiction of this.

[Age]

Both humans and animals have some rationality and some sense of morality. However, animal morality is instinctive, but human morality is rational. Some morality in humans is instinctive, but instinctive human human morality is the same to that of animals.

Will you provide any examples for what you said and claimed, here?

If no, then why not?

Humans are animals. Full stop.

What separates human beings from all of the other animals is human beings posses the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.