A fresh approach to morality

[Age]

Before going on to begin discussing where morality comes from. I want us to recognize that there can be "oughts" where the assignment is arbitrary (but the ought still necessary).

"Necessary" in what sense or way? It clearly can't mean "logically necessary." There's nothing logically demanding of us having any "oughts," given secularism.

...to take an example from OUR society, which depends on efficient movement on roads, there is a right and a wrong side of the road and we ought to travel on the right side. The "ought" is necessary (else traffic could only creep) BUT the assignment of which side arbitrary.

Oh. So not "necessary" at all. Just convenient or conducive for some purpose we might choose.

OK, I think we are now ready to discuss why morality is a necessary component of human cultures.

You mean, "convenient for our purposes," then? It might be. But those "purposes" still need moral evaluating. For example, in order to get more money, maybe it's "convenient" for me to steal from you. Is it moral? "Ought" I to hold back? That's a very different kind of question.

IC ---- Now I really don't understand you
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.

But that's my point. If it's not murder for monkeys, what makes it murder for humans?

The ability to separate, distinguish, construct, and define, words makes 'it' murder for humans and not for monkeys, obviously.

It's not reasonable to suppose that it's because we "evolved" or "are social animals,"

So then do not bring up what is not reasonable to suppose. Obviously you are the only one 'supposing' what you, "yourself", claim is not reasonable, here.

even if that's true: because the assumption has to be that the same is true of ALL animals. And only man gets assigned moral duties, or "oughts." Every other animal just does what's instinctive in each case.

The only one that you are really confusing, and thus deceiving, here, is "yourself" "immanuel can".

Why do we, of all animals, resist our instincts and impulses, and say, "You ought not to do what you are doing," or "You ought to do what you have left undone"? What makes us a special case?

Why do 'you' have impulses, and so-claimed instincts, to do what is actually Wrong, in Life?

Work that out, and understand it better, then even you will be becoming closer to understanding 'morality', itself.

You see this again in the Climate Change movement. Why do they ask us, of all creatures, to "save the planet"? They'd be silly to ask elephants, or doves, or water snakes or parameciums to "save the planet."

1. Asking a thing to do some thing, which does not understand a human language, is silly in and of itself.

2. Asking a thing to do some thing, which it could never do, is just as silly.

So why does a duty to preserve the globe devolve on us, if we, too, are nothing but animals?

Because only you adult human beings have the responsibility to preserve.

Who issued that order?

Instinctual knowing, or just plain old common sense, if you prefer.

You see, Mike, the story they're telling us doesn't add up. Either man is a different case from all the animals, or he's just an animal.

you might also come to see "immanuel can", either 'man' is a different case from all the human beings, or 'man' is just a human being.

Now, although what is actually irrefutably True and Right, here, is obvious, so to is it 'obvious' that one type of animal can be a different case from all of the other animals. Why you, still, at your age can not see and recognize this irrefutable Fact would surprise me if I did not already know why you are completely blind, here.

If the latter, he has no moral duties. If the former, then the obvious question is, "Why different?"

How many times do you have to be informed before you come to realize and understand that you human beings are different from all other animals because you human beings have the ability to learn, understand, and reason any and every thing.

And, by the way, the obvious reason why you adult human beings have the 'moral duty' to 'preserve the globe', as you call it, is because you are the only things 'destroying the globe'. you are all doing this by your Wrong doing. Which, obviously, is some thing that only you adult human beings could, and are, doing.

So, to 'preserve the globe', as you say, only takes you adult human beings learning what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life, and then just stop doing the Wrong, and just start doing only what is Right, in Life.

All of this, along with everything else, in this forum, really is just very simple and easy, indeed.

It's not silly. I'm not mocking. It's the central concern of metaethics: what grounds the existence of morals? It's not "being an animal." It's not "having evolved." It's not "Nature." It's not "being bigger or smarter." And it's not "survival," since "survival" itself is not an imperative.

So what is it?

If we can answer that question, we'll be off to the races.

The answer is, also, very simple and easy, indeed.

Unfortunately though, in the days when this is being written, there are many, many of you adult human beings who, really, do not like to discuss, to find out.

[Age]

understanding human language is a key part of the differential...

it can however pose an interesting question...

is a sitting dog (acting after the command) preforming a moral act?

-Imp

No.

[Age]

Before going on to begin discussing where morality comes from. I want us to recognize that there can be "oughts" where the assignment is arbitrary (but the ought still necessary).

I can't visualize what one of these might be in our societies/cultures 2 million years BCE to 10,000 years BCE which doesn't mean none existed. But to take an example from OUR society, which depends on efficient movement on roads, there is a right and a wrong side of the road and we ought to travel on the right side. The "ought" is necessary (else traffic could only creep) BUT the assignment of which side arbitrary.

In the context of philosophical discussion, that is not what necessary means. What you are describing is prudence not necessity.

Road use becomes safer if we can accurately predict the behaviour of other drivers, thus, assuming we wish to have long predictable lives rather than short but exciting ones... it is prudent to establish conventions such as driving on one side of the road or the other, and all stopping at red lights but driving at green ones and so on. Thus we have a set of oughts that are not moral oughts, but prudential ones.

OK, I think we are now ready to discuss why morality is a necessary component of human cultures. In other words, why we will see no human cultures without it. Please do note that such an evolutionary argument does not (usually) require a "where from" since CHANCE is sufficient to the observed result. But since evolution builds using whatever already there, most likely some of our instincts (for empathy, sympathy, etc.) involved as tools.

Somebody, please propose a children's game for us to use in our analysis.

You can probably get away with this use of necessity, I would suggest not doing so because you don't need to.

If it is observable that all human societies do create a moral milieu, then we might extrapolate from this that they must have one, that it is inevitable that one will arise. But if we are to say that it is necessary in a philosophical sense provokes questions about the mode of necessity, which traditionally would be deductive in nature rather than abductive inference.

This might all sound like pedantry, but there is an important logical point, which can be found in Immanuel Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, which you can read here (pdf). The relevant part begins around page 18 there.

Stripping away a certain amount of Kantian excess... The issue is that using the strict form of necessity common in philosophical discussion, a necessary rule, order, imperative, ought or whatever would be true in any possible world. Prudential oughts fall under a different category, they hypothecated on some other judgment - that it is desirable to have efficient access to the road, so everybody ought to obey the traffic rules. It is nice to be warm, so you ought to buy a new coat for the winter and so on. In Kantian terms, that is the distinction between categorical (necessary) and hypothetical (useful).

So I think your thing probably needs restating in revised terms. What I would suggest is that the emergence of conventions is an inevitable by product of the formation of societies. That the particulars of such conventions are often arbitrary, but the practice is inescapable. For necessity purposes, it is arguably definitional that any society must create such convention (what is a convention free society? Surely that would be nothing but a disaggregated rabble).

So, you can suggest what not to do, but are you able to suggest what to do, exactly?

[Age]

If it is observable that all human societies do create a moral milieu, then we might extrapolate from this that they must have one, that it is inevitable that one will arise. But if we are to say that it is necessary in a philosophical sense provokes questions about the mode of necessity, which traditionally would be deductive in nature rather than abductive inference.

If you really want to discuss how I am using "necessary"

I would say X is necessary to a culture if in the absence of having X that culture would not survive (would cease to exist).

I am not using it in the sense of logical necessity. Cultures are subject to evolutionary pressure so if lacking something useful that the competing cultures have, they will be out-competed.

Again, looking ahead -- I am aiming for "morality" to be necessary for human cultures. That's why I began by discussing non-moral right/wrong because FIRST wanting to show that there exist at least some of these (as necessary, for a culture to continue to exist).

But instead of trying to start with "where does morality come from?" I will be asking WHAT IS MORALITY DOING? and "WHY IS THAT NECESSARY?". The point here is once that is shown no need to determine "where from" << that's like asking what caused the initial genetic mutation that made possile an evolutionary change --- as soon as "by chance" is a possible answer you don't NEED a better answer >>

I would suggest, if you have not already, that you just define the word, 'morality', here, in 'the way' that you are using 'that word', here, exactly.

Only then after 'that' is agreed with, and accepted, then you human beings will actual move along, and progress, here.

If nobody else will propose a children's game, I will, starting with one where "rule breaking" NOT going to raise moral issues. Please note that children's games are how we humans learn to carry out coordinated activities.

I knew I was taking a chance with that "which side of the road" but don't KNOW a good example of that type of arbitrary assignment for human societies >10,000 years in the past. I know you are able to think being able to move people and goods at more than very slow speed "a convenience". But pray tell, what do you think would happen in OUR society if that happened << would we be able to move goods fast enough to prevent a major die off? Say 90% of the population starving in short order. >>

What?

If you adult human beings 'slowed' things down somewhat, then you human beings would, probably, live, or survive, longer. you would just have to wait, to find out, and see.

[Age]

If it is observable that all human societies do create a moral milieu, then we might extrapolate from this that they must have one, that it is inevitable that one will arise. But if we are to say that it is necessary in a philosophical sense provokes questions about the mode of necessity, which traditionally would be deductive in nature rather than abductive inference.

If you really want to discuss how I am using "necessary"

I would say X is necessary to a culture if in the absence of having X that culture would not survive (would cease to exist). I am not using it in the sense of logical necessity. Cultures are subject to evolutionary pressure so if lacking something useful that the competing cultures have, they will be out-competed.

This is intended to be useful advice for you, I am not going to war here. You are using a colloquial version of a protected term of art in a way that contradicts the philosophical usage of the term and is only going to cause you problems that you could easily avoid by switching out the term for a more accurate one such as 'obligatory'.

And, you are using a version of the word, 'philosophical', that contradicts the philosophical usage of the term, which is only going to cause you issues that you could easily avoid by switching out the term for nothing at all or for a more accurate one.

If even IC can see the problem, it is a real problem.

But, there is no actual real 'problem', here. As can be clearly seen and proved above, here.

Also, "immanuel can" has a very specific agenda, which it is 'trying' its hardest to fight for, here.

I recommend not dying on such a pointless hill. That phrase "necessary ought" will definitely kill your argument, if you go past me and IC and encounter a real philosopher and use those word, they will stop reading right there.

However, if some thing 'ought' to be done, in regards to survival, then it is obviously a 'necessary ought'. Full stop.

Also, and by the way, if one has not yet heard nor seen 'one's argument', then 'that one' does not yet know what could, nor would, kill it, or not.

For example,

Unpolluted, or clean enough, air is necessary for human beings survival.
If human beings keep polluting the air, then it will get to a stage where the air is too polluted for human beings survival.
There, it could be said and argued, that it is a 'necessary ought' to not keep polluting the air that human beings need, literally for their own survival.

Again, looking ahead -- I am aiming for "morality" to be necessary for human cultures. That's why I began by discussing non-moral right/wrong because FIRST wanting to show that there exist at least some of these (as necessary, for a culture to continue to exist).

That use of necessary, not a problem with me because it is clear in context that the everyday version of the term is in use and nobody has to watch out for any prestidigitation. I am often accuse of reckless misuse of language though, so my endorsement is not ideal.

Although, again, necessary on what basis?

The 'need' or 'necessary' word, when used undefined, are in relation to living, and/or survival.

Is it definitional of "culture" that such practices/traditions/conventions(?) are what culture does, or is it merely inescapable that cultures of more than X persons cannot operate without such cooperative practices?

But instead of trying to start with "where does morality come from?" I will be asking WHAT IS MORALITY DOING? and "WHY IS THAT NECESSARY?". The point here is once that is shown no need to determine "where from" << that's like asking what caused the initial genetic mutation that made possile an evolutionary change --- as soon as "by chance" is a possible answer you don't NEED a better answer >>

Quite so. If it is possible to arrive by evolutionary chance at the situation that pertains or which did for our distant ancestors, then the lack of need for any other explanation is apparent. The case made to establish this is of course... sufficient but not necessary.

If nobody else will propose a children's game, I will, starting with one where "rule breaking" NOT going to raise moral issues. Please note that children's games are how we humans learn to carry out coordinated activities.

I knew I was taking a chance with that "which side of the road" but don't KNOW a good example of that type of arbitrary assignment for human societies >10,000 years in the past. I know you are able to think being able to move people and goods at more than very slow speed "a convenience". But pray tell, what do you think would happen in OUR society if that happened << would we be able to move goods fast enough to prevent a major die off? Say 90% of the population starving in short order. >>

That direction of argument doesn't work. The imperative remains hypothetical no matter what move you try, and they have all been tried many times and I have seen it all. The survival of the species, the happiness of the universe, harmony betwixt heaven and earth, all these things are I am sure very fine objectives to seek. But "medicine is good because without medicine all the children will die of polio and then our cats will all be lonely" remains a prudential ought not a categorical one.



I still have no idea if you are aiming at a realist or antirealist outcome with this argument. But a lot of what you are doing seems reminiscent of Mary Midgely's Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. Her opening question there is about what sort of animal we are, and what counts as the good for that sort of animal. It's sort of Aristotelian virtue ethics stuff, not immensely to my taste, but you might find some helpful stuff there and Midgely's work is always well argued even when wrong.

How can some thing, to you, be 'well argued' even when wrong, exactly?

To me any argument that is not sound and valid is not 'well argued' at all. As only 'an argument', which is presented sound and valid is 'argued well'.

[MikeNovack]

...to take an example from OUR society, which depends on efficient movement on roads, there is a right and a wrong side of the road and we ought to travel on the right side. The "ought" is necessary (else traffic could only creep) BUT the assignment of which side arbitrary.

Oh. So not "necessary" at all. Just convenient or conducive for some purpose we might choose.

If you want to consider EXISTENCE as an example of some purpose in "conducive for some purpose" then yes.

But since I am going to be discussing in terms of exists as a result of evolution, existence is not "optional" My use of "necessary" is not THAT different from the logical as long as restricted to an argument like this:

If X cannot exist without Y then Y is necessary for X

To jump ahead where I expect similar term rejection:
"prudential" can only refer to THINKING entities. A human can have a prudential rule. A culture/society cannot. It can't have a moral rule either. A culture/society simply isn't that sort of entity.

IC -- PLEASE -- let's differ your human/ANIMAL EXCEPTIONALISM till later. Or another discussion. Note that our difference of opinion is the nature of the boundary, you considering that a sharp line and I a fuzzy one. If you want to take up this topic, come prepared to answer (give your belief) WHEN in our evolutionary history was that hard/sharp line crossed (and why)

[MikeNovack]

For the first children's game we will take "Ring around the rosie"

I'm picking this one because a good one to demonstrate characteristics of children's games. And it will let us examine "what if the rules not followed" when morality NOT involved.

The children join hands in a circle, and go around chanting "Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posie, ashes, ashes, we all fall DOWN" at which they tumble to the ground << can get up and repaet >>

The transmission generation for children's games is about three years. By which n mean children learn the games from children about three years older. So the first thing we can see is how accurately they can be transmitted. It has been more than 200 "generations" since the 14th Century plague pandemic which is what this game "remember" << ashes, ashes once <achoo, achoo -- the pneumonic form of plague particularly deadly and very short incubation period >>

OK, that's how to play the game "right". Now what happens if a child fails to follow the rules. For example, either falls down too soon OR does not fall down at the end. How will the other children react? <<let's discuss that a bit >>

[MikeNovack]

<< aside >> my use of "necessary" and "sufficient"

I disagree about whether I am using these terms in their formal sense. Thus:
If X implies Y then we sat "X is sufficient" for Y
If not X implies not Y then we say "X is necessary for Y"

Because discussing in evolutionary terms, when I say "cannot exist" not meaning cannot exist instantaneously but cannot exist over time (cannot persist)

Reading suggestions are always welcome but you should assume in my case that I am reasonably well read in philosophy from the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, etc.) to the moderns (Midgley, Rawls, Nozick, Singer, etc) and those in between (Hume, Bentham, etc.). While I'm not part of academic philosophy, some connection << ask me directly, offline >>

[FlashDangerpants]

ok then. what comes next in the argument?

[MikeNovack]

For the first children's game we will take "Ring around the rosie"

I'm picking this one because a good one to demonstrate characteristics of children's games. And it will let us examine "what if the rules not followed" when morality NOT involved.

The children join hands in a circle, and go around chanting "Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posie, ashes, ashes, we all fall DOWN" at which they tumble to the ground << can get up and repaet >>

OK, that's how to play the game "right". Now what happens if a child fails to follow the rules. For example, either falls down too soon OR does not fall down at the end. How will the other children react? <<let's discuss that a bit >>

I suggest in THIS situation (a child NOT falling down at the right time, either too early or not at all) the other children will respond NOT in a way involving "morality". In other words, will treat this as "ignorance" and attempt to "teach" the right way, and if that doesn't work, might decide "too dumb to learn" and exclude the child. Do note that THIS failure of that child to "get it right" DID make the "game" impossible. We will return here (to compare) after considering a different game, where non-compliance will result in a different sort of response (moral) and then we try to see WHY.

But first let's see if we all agree. Is what I described how the other children are likely to respond? << I'll leave time for responses before going on to that different children's game >>

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?. If so, WHEN in human evolution to you propose this hard dividing line come into existence? Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, just say so.

[Alexiev]

For the first children's game we will take "Ring around the rosie"

I'm picking this one because a good one to demonstrate characteristics of children's games. And it will let us examine "what if the rules not followed" when morality NOT involved.

The children join hands in a circle, and go around chanting "Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posie, ashes, ashes, we all fall DOWN" at which they tumble to the ground << can get up and repaet >>

OK, that's how to play the game "right". Now what happens if a child fails to follow the rules. For example, either falls down too soon OR does not fall down at the end. How will the other children react? <<let's discuss that a bit >>

I suggest in THIS situation (a child NOT falling down at the right time, either too early or not at all) the other children will respond NOT in a way involving "morality". In other words, will treat this as "ignorance" and attempt to "teach" the right way, and if that doesn't work, might decide "too dumb to learn" and exclude the child. Do note that THIS failure of that child to "get it right" DID make the "game" impossible. We will return here (to compare) after considering a different game, where non-compliance will result in a different sort of response (moral) and then we try to see WHY.
childed how the other children are likely to respond? << I'll leave time for responses before going on to that different children's game >>

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?. If so, WHEN in human evolution to you propose this hard dividing line come into existence? Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, just say so.

I admit I haven't read the entire thread. But I think the children's response will be more variable and complicated than you suggest. They might try to teach the incorrect child. They might assume the child who is falling incorrectly is doing so as a rebel, or for a joke. They might join in the joke and all start falling down inappropriately (especially if the child initiating the joke is popular). They might all start flouting the rules and laughing hysterically. They might think the anarchic version of the game is funnier and more enjoyable than playing by the rules. After all, humor often involves the flouting of rules or norms.

[FlashDangerpants]

For the first children's game we will take "Ring around the rosie"

I'm picking this one because a good one to demonstrate characteristics of children's games. And it will let us examine "what if the rules not followed" when morality NOT involved.

The children join hands in a circle, and go around chanting "Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posie, ashes, ashes, we all fall DOWN" at which they tumble to the ground << can get up and repaet >>

OK, that's how to play the game "right". Now what happens if a child fails to follow the rules. For example, either falls down too soon OR does not fall down at the end. How will the other children react? <<let's discuss that a bit >>

I suggest in THIS situation (a child NOT falling down at the right time, either too early or not at all) the other children will respond NOT in a way involving "morality". In other words, will treat this as "ignorance" and attempt to "teach" the right way, and if that doesn't work, might decide "too dumb to learn" and exclude the child. Do note that THIS failure of that child to "get it right" DID make the "game" impossible. We will return here (to compare) after considering a different game, where non-compliance will result in a different sort of response (moral) and then we try to see WHY.

But first let's see if we all agree. Is what I described how the other children are likely to respond? << I'll leave time for responses before going on to that different children's game >>

I'm Alexiev on this one. Little children happily incorporate a little chaos into these things, some adult might be scolding the child to fall down at command though. Ring around the rosie really isn't a game like chess that stops working if any participant doesn't know the rules.

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?. If so, WHEN in human evolution to you propose this hard dividing line come into existence? Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, just say so.

He does not believe in evolution. It is a mistake to raise the issue with him, he is always more than happy to redirect your thread to a discussion of his religion.

[Immanuel Can]

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?.

It's not possible to believe in both. If human beings are merely the products of "evolution," then they aren't "exceptional" in any way that would justfiy subjecting them to morality. They're natural products of the natural world, and what they do, good or bad, is just a natural product, just another animal; and hence their belief in morality is both inexplicable and unjustified entirely.

We don't call animals "bad" or "good" when they do the things animals naturally do. So why do we call human beings "moral agents," when they're just animals doing animal things, according to the Evolutionist narrative?

If Evolutionism were true, in application to humans, there ought to be no such thing as morality. We should simply realize that it was all a delusion, and get past it, just as Nietzsche said.

[Alexiev]

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?.

It's not possible to believe in both. If human beings are merely the products of "evolution," then they aren't "exceptional" in any way that would justfiy subjecting them to morality. They're natural products of the natural world, and what they do, good or bad, is just a natural product, just another animal; and hence their belief in morality is both inexplicable and unjustified entirely.

We don't call animals "bad" or "good" when they do the things animals naturally do. So why do we call human beings "moral agents," when they're just animals doing animal things, according to the Evolutionist narrative?

If Evolutionism were true, in application to humans, there ought to be no such thing as morality. We should simply realize that it was all a delusion, and get past it, just as Nietzsche said.

I don't want to derail the thread, but this is ridiculous. Humans might be "exceptional" if morality is culturally constituted, just as they might be if they were created in God's image. Also, the more we learn about other animals, the more we learn that they have "cultures" and hence may have morals.

Now start a different thread. "Good dog.."

[Age]

Meanwhile --- IC, do you believe in BOTH "human exceptionalism" (hard line between humans and other animals) AND evolutio?.

It's not possible to believe in both. If human beings are merely the products of "evolution," then they aren't "exceptional" in any way that would justfiy subjecting them to morality.

Except for the very obvious Fact that they had evolved having knowledge of 'morality' and of being able to express and share that 'knowledge of morality', and of being about to discuss 'morality', and of being able to do what is 'morally Right, and Wrong', in Life. Which, in and of itself, obviously means that 'this ability' has provided them with being 'different', or what some might, laughably, call, 'exceptional', compared to the 'other animals'.

But, "Immanuel can" was not able to recognize and see this Fact before, again because of its already obtained and well maintained beliefs.

They're natural products of the natural world, and what they do, good or bad, is just a natural product, just another animal; and hence their belief in morality is both inexplicable and unjustified entirely.

Again, False, and Wrong, conclusion, based off of and from False, and Wrong, premises.

We don't call animals "bad" or "good" when they do the things animals naturally do.

I certainly hope that you human animals are not that stupid to do so.

So why do we call human beings "moral agents," when they're just animals doing animal things, according to the Evolutionist narrative?

LOL The so-called 'evolutionist narrative' does not say nor claim this.

Once again, "Immanuel can" introduces Falsehoods, to 'argue against', because it is absolutely nothing at all to 'argue for', in regards to its beliefs, here.

If Evolutionism were true, in application to humans, there ought to be no such thing as morality.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Why 'ought' there be no such thing as 'morality', exactly?

LOL Because that thing with a penis told you so?

We should simply realize that it was all a delusion, and get past it, just as Nietzsche said.

Yes, and 'we' 'should' simply realize that a thing with a penis created absolutely every thing all at once, and nothing at all changes, nor evolves, hey "immanuel can".

It is like 'these human beings', here, are just so stupid to have not yet realized this truth, and just believe delusions, hey "immanuel can"?

Which could make some wonder why that thing with a penis, called God, created such foolish and stupid beings, from the beginning?

Why do you think or believe God created such foolish and stupid human beings for, "Immanuel can"?