A fresh approach to morality

[Phil8659]

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 >>

Really? A fools agreement?
What may be predicated of anything, (foundation of grammar) is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.
So, why ask a monkey how to do a man's job? There is nothing fresh about the same old lame brained stupidity.

[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.

Humans might be "exceptional" if morality is culturally constituted, just as they might be if they were created in God's image.

Morality cannot be "culturally constituted," unless you believe what was done in Russia, China or Nazi Germany was "moral." For each of them had very widespread, defined "cultures" in which the moral abominations they committed went on unchecked. If "being cultural" were all that it took to certify a morality, you could not criticize the many millions they robbed, tortured, exiled and murdered in savage ways. Or you could not criticize female circumcision, slavery or bride-burning, since they are all decidedly "cultural" in North Africa, the Mideast and India respectively. Or you could not object to a political regime in your own country, since your "culture" has produced that kind of leadership.

To say morality is "cultural" is really to say there's no morality at all, because there's almost nothing that some "culture," at one time or another, has not approved or censured.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

There is the Pure & Applied concepts to Morality.
The 'ought' is confined to the Pure [right or wrong] as guide for the Applied.

What ought to be right must be empirically based.
How?
I have argued that elsewhere.

For example,
All humans ought to breathe, else they will die - this is DNA programmed and easily verified scientifically via the biological framework and system.
It is from this empirical ought that we can derive moral oughts as Pure principles.
How?
I have explain that elsewhere.

[Alexiev]

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.

Humans might be "exceptional" if morality is culturally constituted, just as they might be if they were created in God's image.

Morality cannot be "culturally constituted," unless you believe what was done in Russia, China or Nazi Germany was "moral." For each of them had very widespread, defined "cultures" in which the moral abominations they committed went on unchecked. If "being cultural" were all that it took to certify a morality, you could not criticize the many millions they robbed, tortured, exiled and murdered in savage ways. Or you could not criticize female circumcision, slavery or bride-burning, since they are all decidedly "cultural" in North Africa, the Mideast and India respectively. Or you could not object to a political regime in your own country, since your "culture" has produced that kind of leadership.

To say morality is "cultural" is really to say there's no morality at all, because there's almost nothing that some "culture," at one time or another, has not approved or censured.

This post is nonsensical. Why if some cultures' moral codes contradict others, must one assume that morality cannot be culturally constituted? That would seem to suggest the reverse. Also, the Bible is a book, which is a cultural artifact. So biblical morality is culturally constituted whether or not the bible is inspired by God.

I can use my culturally constituted morality to criticize all those Christians who burned witches and heretics, as well as those who are merely pig-headed. So as cultures have changed their interpretations of the Bible, Christian morality has changed. It's obviously affected by cultural norms.

By the way, many forms of female circumcision do not involve clitoridectomy and are no more objectionable than male circumcision (which many people find objectionable). I read a New Yorker article about it years ago, but can't find a link in a one minute search. (Of course some forms involve genital mutilation.)

[MikeNovack]

I will repeat, before continuing, by human culture we are talking about it as it existed for 99.....% of our history (before ~ 10,000 BCE. So please stop this jumping ahead to the mega cultures of today (the last several thousand years). Will get to THAT problem later (how we expand morality and associated problems. What the last several posters put up has nothing to do with possible origins. That said...

Let us consider another children's game, "hide and seek"

In a group of children, in each "round", one is chosen as "seeker" and the others as "hiders". The hider turns around, closes eyes, for some designated time (count or recitation -- the game surely much older than formal counting*). The others run off and hide. At the end of the agreed time, the "seeker" announces now hunting and attempts to find those hiding. When all are found, a new round begins. One common variant, the last found becomes seeker. Let's discuss THIS variant first << for when some child does not conform >>


* aside --- no need to COUNT small numbers of things. A "built in" tool. For example, at a flash glance (too quick for counting) you can tell "more" in a grouping of 8 pebbles vs one of 7. And sorry IC, not just us humans are able to do this. Will may later return to this. But again, not REALLY interested in what tools/instincts might have be used when evolving "morality"

[Immanuel Can]

Humans might be "exceptional" if morality is culturally constituted, just as they might be if they were created in God's image.

Morality cannot be "culturally constituted," unless you believe what was done in Russia, China or Nazi Germany was "moral." For each of them had very widespread, defined "cultures" in which the moral abominations they committed went on unchecked. If "being cultural" were all that it took to certify a morality, you could not criticize the many millions they robbed, tortured, exiled and murdered in savage ways. Or you could not criticize female circumcision, slavery or bride-burning, since they are all decidedly "cultural" in North Africa, the Mideast and India respectively. Or you could not object to a political regime in your own country, since your "culture" has produced that kind of leadership.

To say morality is "cultural" is really to say there's no morality at all, because there's almost nothing that some "culture," at one time or another, has not approved or censured.

Why if some cultures' moral codes contradict others, must one assume that morality cannot be culturally constituted?

Easy. Because it would imply that whatever "code" the culture is imposing is merely arbitrary. And it would make judging anything cross-culturally utterly irrational. Why blame somebody for liking slavery, burning live wives with their dead husbands, or forcing female circumcision on their teenage girls, when these things are just as "cultural" as your antipathy to them is?

So you've deprived yourself of the means of saying that anything is really, genuinely or ultimately right or wrong, morally speaking. So there is no moral information available from a cultural-relativist perspective.

I can use my culturally constituted morality to criticize...

No, you cannot. Not if you genuinely believe your own morality is merely "cultural."

You could say, "Hey, fellah...I don't like the fact that you're enslaving/murdering/raping that person." But they can say, "This is my culture, and for me, it's right." And you have no comeback -- at least, that they ought to care about. After all, you believe your own moral assessments begin and end within your own culture; it has no relevance to theirs.

Moreover, your culture's morality is time-bound, as well. It used to be considered hideous for women to murder babies, and was in fact, a crime and a form of murder; nowadays, it's trumpeted as a "right" for women to murder their babies. Once, homosexuality was illegal in your culture; now it has parades in the streets. Since your own culture shifts, you can't even safely say what's really "right" and "wrong," morally speaking WITHIN your own culture. So again, you're in no position, logically speaking to justify any judgment -- good or bad -- on anything at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Let us consider another children's game, "hide and seek"

"Hide and seek" is just plain devoid of morality. It's just a game, and there's no moral rightness or wrongness to it. Somebody may play the game badly, or play it so as to win; he/she may cheat or play by the rules, and get either outcome. But no sensible person will call them "immoral" for the way they choose to play it.

That is, unless there is a larger, objective code, one external to the game, that says something like, "Thou shalt not cheat." And from where is a secular person going to get such a code?

[Alexiev]

Morality cannot be "culturally constituted," unless you believe what was done in Russia, China or Nazi Germany was "moral." For each of them had very widespread, defined "cultures" in which the moral abominations they committed went on unchecked. If "being cultural" were all that it took to certify a morality, you could not criticize the many millions they robbed, tortured, exiled and murdered in savage ways. Or you could not criticize female circumcision, slavery or bride-burning, since they are all decidedly "cultural" in North Africa, the Mideast and India respectively. Or you could not object to a political regime in your own country, since your "culture" has produced that kind of leadership.

To say morality is "cultural" is really to say there's no morality at all, because there's almost nothing that some "culture," at one time or another, has not approved or censured.

Why if some cultures' moral codes contradict others, must one assume that morality cannot be culturally constituted?

Easy. Because it would imply that whatever "code" the culture is imposing is merely arbitrary. And it would make judging anything cross-culturally utterly irrational. Why blame somebody for liking slavery, burning live wives with their dead husbands, or forcing female circumcision on their teenage girls, when these things are just as "cultural" as your antipathy to them is?

So you've deprived yourself of the means of saying that anything is really, genuinely or ultimately right or wrong, morally speaking. So there is no moral information available from a cultural-relativist perspective.

I can use my culturally constituted morality to criticize...

No, you cannot. Not if you genuinely believe your own morality is merely "cultural."

You could say, "Hey, fellah...I don't like the fact that you're enslaving/murdering/raping that person." But they can say, "This is my culture, and for me, it's right." And you have no comeback -- at least, that they ought to care about. After all, you believe your own moral assessments begin and end within your own culture; it has no relevance to theirs.

Moreover, your culture's morality is time-bound, as well. It used to be considered hideous for women to murder babies, and was in fact, a crime and a form of murder; nowadays, it's trumpeted as a "right" for women to murder their babies. Once, homosexuality was illegal in your culture; now it has parades in the streets. Since your own culture shifts, you can't even safely say what's really "right" and wrong morally speaking WITHIN your own culture. So again, you're in no position, logically speaking to justify any judgment -- good or bad -- on anything at all.

The notion that subjective positions are "arbitrary" is ridiculous. Nor is judging things cross culturally irrational. Why would it be? We are all products of our own cultures, and derive our morality from those cultures. Just like you do. I can safely say what's right and wrong -- I justify my opinions based on slightly different sources than you. Of course we should also be aware that people are products of their cultures; slave owners in classical Athens were probably decent people, conforming to the norms of their times. The institution may be evil, but we should temper our judgement of participants.

[Alexiev]

I will repeat, before continuing, by human culture we are talking about it as it existed for 99.....% of our history (before ~ 10,000 BCE. So please stop this jumping ahead to the mega cultures of today (the last several thousand years). Will get to THAT problem later (how we expand morality and associated problems. What the last several posters put up has nothing to do with possible origins. That said...

Let us consider another children's game, "hide and seek"

In a group of children, in each "round", one is chosen as "seeker" and the others as "hiders". The hider turns around, closes eyes, for some designated time (count or recitation -- the game surely much older than formal counting*). The others run off and hide. At the end of the agreed time, the "seeker" announces now hunting and attempts to find those hiding. When all are found, a new round begins. One common variant, the last found becomes seeker. Let's discuss THIS variant first << for when some child does not conform >>


* aside --- no need to COUNT small numbers of things. A "built in" tool. For example, at a flash glance (too quick for counting) you can tell "more" in a grouping of 8 pebbles vs one of 7. And sorry IC, not just us humans are able to do this. Will may later return to this. But again, not REALLY interested in what tools/instincts might have be used when evolving "morality"

Once again, children often fail to conform. The seeker peeks. The hiders who get caught give the seeker hints as to where to find others. Some hiders get bored and give themselves up; some seekers get bored and shout, "Allee, Allee In Free, Freedom, free." *(At least, that's what we used to shout.)

[Age]

Let us consider another children's game, "hide and seek"

"Hide and seek" is just plain devoid of morality. It's just a game, and there's no moral rightness or wrongness to it. Somebody may play the game badly, or play it so as to win; he/she may cheat or play by the rules, and get either outcome. But no sensible person will call them "immoral" for the way they choose to play it.

That is, unless there is a larger, objective code, one external to the game, that says something like, "Thou shalt not cheat." And from where is a secular person going to get such a code?

The exact same place everyone else does. And, that place is certainly not from any book. Especially any book written by human beings and claimed to be the words of God, alone.

[Immanuel Can]

Why if some cultures' moral codes contradict others, must one assume that morality cannot be culturally constituted?

Easy. Because it would imply that whatever "code" the culture is imposing is merely arbitrary. And it would make judging anything cross-culturally utterly irrational. Why blame somebody for liking slavery, burning live wives with their dead husbands, or forcing female circumcision on their teenage girls, when these things are just as "cultural" as your antipathy to them is?

So you've deprived yourself of the means of saying that anything is really, genuinely or ultimately right or wrong, morally speaking. So there is no moral information available from a cultural-relativist perspective.

I can use my culturally constituted morality to criticize...

No, you cannot. Not if you genuinely believe your own morality is merely "cultural."

You could say, "Hey, fellah...I don't like the fact that you're enslaving/murdering/raping that person." But they can say, "This is my culture, and for me, it's right." And you have no comeback -- at least, that they ought to care about. After all, you believe your own moral assessments begin and end within your own culture; it has no relevance to theirs.

Moreover, your culture's morality is time-bound, as well. It used to be considered hideous for women to murder babies, and was in fact, a crime and a form of murder; nowadays, it's trumpeted as a "right" for women to murder their babies. Once, homosexuality was illegal in your culture; now it has parades in the streets. Since your own culture shifts, you can't even safely say what's really "right" and wrong morally speaking WITHIN your own culture. So again, you're in no position, logically speaking to justify any judgment -- good or bad -- on anything at all.

The notion that subjective positions are "arbitrary" is ridiculous.

No, it's definitional. If they are "subjective," then they are binding on NOBODY...not even the person having them has a duty to pay them heed.

Nor is judging things cross culturally irrational. Why would it be?

I explained that. It wipes out all grounds for cross-cultural judgment: why, they might ask you, are you so imperious as to imagine your culture is fit to judge another?

We are all products of our own cultures, and derive our morality from those cultures. Just like you do.

I don't, actually. I derive mine from my personal faith. I live in a culture that does not do that.

I can safely say what's right and wrong -- I justify my opinions based on slightly different sources than you.

Go ahead. Justify one of your moral "opinions." I'll let you name it, and then explain why you think it can be justified, if you like. You say you think slavery is wrong. Explain why we should think that's true, given subjectivity and cultural relativism.

Of course we should also be aware that people are products of their cultures; slave owners in classical Athens were probably decent people, conforming to the norms of their times. The institution may be evil, but we should temper our judgement of participants.

How do you know slavery is "evil"? It is one of the most ancient and durable institutions this world has every known, and is or has been enshrined in most cultures on the planet, at one time or another. On what basis of justification do you call it "evil," then, since you think culture is the explanation of morality?

[Age]

Easy. Because it would imply that whatever "code" the culture is imposing is merely arbitrary. And it would make judging anything cross-culturally utterly irrational. Why blame somebody for liking slavery, burning live wives with their dead husbands, or forcing female circumcision on their teenage girls, when these things are just as "cultural" as your antipathy to them is?

So you've deprived yourself of the means of saying that anything is really, genuinely or ultimately right or wrong, morally speaking. So there is no moral information available from a cultural-relativist perspective.


No, you cannot. Not if you genuinely believe your own morality is merely "cultural."

You could say, "Hey, fellah...I don't like the fact that you're enslaving/murdering/raping that person." But they can say, "This is my culture, and for me, it's right." And you have no comeback -- at least, that they ought to care about. After all, you believe your own moral assessments begin and end within your own culture; it has no relevance to theirs.

Moreover, your culture's morality is time-bound, as well. It used to be considered hideous for women to murder babies, and was in fact, a crime and a form of murder; nowadays, it's trumpeted as a "right" for women to murder their babies. Once, homosexuality was illegal in your culture; now it has parades in the streets. Since your own culture shifts, you can't even safely say what's really "right" and wrong morally speaking WITHIN your own culture. So again, you're in no position, logically speaking to justify any judgment -- good or bad -- on anything at all.

The notion that subjective positions are "arbitrary" is ridiculous.

No, it's definitional. If they are "subjective," then they are binding on NOBODY...not even the person having them has a duty to pay them heed.

Nor is judging things cross culturally irrational. Why would it be?

I explained that. It wipes out all grounds for cross-cultural judgment: why, they might ask you, are you so imperious as to imagine your culture is fit to judge another?

We are all products of our own cultures, and derive our morality from those cultures. Just like you do.

I don't, actually. I derive mine from my personal faith. I live in a culture that does not do that.

LOL 'This' really was how blind and stupid some adult human beings had become. They, literally, could not see the obvious and blatant Truth, which lay before them.

I can safely say what's right and wrong -- I justify my opinions based on slightly different sources than you.

Go ahead. Justify one of your moral "opinions." I'll let you name it, and then explain why you think it can be justified, if you like. You say you think slavery is wrong. Explain why we should think that's true, given subjectivity and cultural relativism.

Can you justify what you think is right or wrong, given your own personal faith?

If yes, then will you go ahead and justify one of your own moral 'opinions', here?

I will let you name it, and then explain why you think it can be justified, if you like.

But, if you do not even attempt this, then this shows and reveals to the readers, here, that you do not have trust, nor faith, in your own personal faith.

Which ultimately means your own personal faith is really completely worthless and useless.

Of course we should also be aware that people are products of their cultures; slave owners in classical Athens were probably decent people, conforming to the norms of their times. The institution may be evil, but we should temper our judgement of participants.

How do you know slavery is "evil"? It is one of the most ancient and durable institutions this world has every known, and is or has been enshrined in most cultures on the planet, at one time or another. On what basis of justification do you call it "evil," then, since you think culture is the explanation of morality?

Do you think or believe slavery is wrong, or right?

[Alexiev]

I explained that. It wipes out all grounds for cross-cultural judgment: why, they might ask you, are you so imperious as to imagine your culture is fit to judge another?

They might ask that, and I would give them a good answer. So what?

I don't, actually. I derive mine from my personal faith. I live in a culture that does not do that.

YOur personal faith is based on the Bible, whch is a book, which is a cultural artifact. By the way, I also derive my morals from personal faith.

Go ahead. Justify one of your moral "opinions." I'll let you name it, and then explain why you think it can be justified, if you like. You say you think slavery is wrong. Explain why we should think that's true, given subjectivity and cultural relativism.

The same is true of Christian morality. Why should any non-Christian (i.e. the vast majority of the world) accept it. It boils down to accepting postulates on which morality is based. I could argue slavery is wrong because morals should improve human well-being and happiness. Of course this postulate is subjective, as is the postulate that it is wrong because, despite never inveighing against it in the Bible, it contradicts some of Jesus's stated principles. IN either case anyone who wants to can say, "I don't agree with your premise."

[MikeNovack]

Trying to avoid the noise, and this is slightly junping ahead, but in the right direction.

Let us consider another children's game, "hide and seek"

"Hide and seek" is just plain devoid of morality. It's just a game, and there's no moral rightness or wrongness to it. Somebody may play the game badly, or play it so as to win; he/she may cheat or play by the rules, and get either outcome. But no sensible person will call them "immoral" for the way they choose to play it.

That is, unless there is a larger, objective code, one external to the game, that says something like, "Thou shalt not cheat." And from where is a secular person going to get such a code?

The exact same place everyone else does. And, that place is certainly not from any book. Especially any book written by human beings and claimed to be the words of God, alone.

OK, you gave examples of some ways a child in THIS game could non-conform and recognized that unlike in the first game, the others likely to interpret as "cheating". Even though unclear HOW an unfair benefit, recognizers would be triggered. My point is that "cheating" NOT directly tied to THIS game but any, and by game we mean any col;lective activity of humans.

I am positing:
a) We need these collective activities to work smoothly (obligatory social animals)
b) Those cultures that evolved "morality" to induce compliance with the "rules" of these activities succeeded (had n advantage over those without "morality")
c) The BASE set of moral codes will be universal with slight variation because prior to 10,000 years BCE there was less variation between human societies. But the "base set" is only going to be applicable when situations match those conditions.

IC -- notice that makes your question "where do these rules come from?" moot because "chance" is good enough once we are talking about
evolutionary process. HOWEVER, as soon as we get to "but this isn't enough morality for today (our societies MUCH larger with far more interactions than possible for "band of 30-100 all knowing each other. This extended moral code WON'T be evolved, so where will we get it from.

[Immanuel Can]

Trying to avoid the noise, and this is slightly junping ahead, but in the right direction.

"Hide and seek" is just plain devoid of morality. It's just a game, and there's no moral rightness or wrongness to it. Somebody may play the game badly, or play it so as to win; he/she may cheat or play by the rules, and get either outcome. But no sensible person will call them "immoral" for the way they choose to play it.

That is, unless there is a larger, objective code, one external to the game, that says something like, "Thou shalt not cheat." And from where is a secular person going to get such a code?

IC -- notice that makes your question "where do these rules come from?" moot because "chance" is good enough once we are talking about
evolutionary process.

Hmmm...not nearly "good enough." If, for example, the precept that we should not enslave other human beings is merely a matter of "chance," then it's not binding in any way at all...even to the individual conscience. For if something is a mere matter of "chance," it means there was no necessity of it being the case at all. Evolution could just as easily have chance-generated that slavery would be moral as that it happens to be considered (by our local group) immoral.

So no, chance can't be good enough, nor evolution, nor nature, nor group. None of them will make any particular moral precept obligatory or compelling upon somebody who wants to do differently.

HOWEVER, as soon as we get to "but this isn't enough morality for today (our societies MUCH larger with far more interactions than possible for "band of 30-100 all knowing each other. This extended moral code WON'T be evolved, so where will we get it from.

Wait: are you now saying that "society" is NOT a product of evolutionary chance? If it's not, that argument would surely need to be spelled out, would it not? But if it is, then to say we should be moral "because society thinks that" is without merit. Why should we think we ought to do what a larger mob or group of people wish, rather than what we wish -- especially since their disposition and ours are both mere matters of "chance"?