A fresh approach to morality

[MikeNovack]

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.

You found evidence of the existence of societies at the stage being discussed (pre 10,000 years ago( having things like slavery? THAT is what we are talking about, yes? Where evolutionary forces involved. Keep in mind "chance" includes taking advantage of tools we may come with << like the ability to immediately perceive relative quantity >>. LACKING that built in might make evolving "fairness" more difficult.

If you insist on jumping ahead to our larger societies, yes, HOW we managed to expand "morality" to cover situations/interactions now possible is another question. But please note, "where does morality come from?" and "where does each and every rule of a moral system come from?" are NOT the same question.

IC -- when you say "morality comes from God" don't you mean just "the rules of morality come from God". Not "the knowledge of whether we are following or breaking one of these rules comes from God" . Unless by "comes from God" you are including that God placed that tree in the Garden in the first place (keeping with your mythos). In other words, if you were saying "morality comes from our ultimate progenitors having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) but the rules themselves come from God I could discuss this with you (I think YOUR text reads otherwise).

[Immanuel Can]

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.

You found evidence of the existence of societies at the stage being discussed (pre 10,000 years ago( having things like slavery? THAT is what we are talking about, yes?

We don't really know anything much about such societies; but from the dawn of our historical records, we find slavery was nearly a universal practice. And today, there are more slaves -- and of a worse sort-- in the world than at any time in history.

If you insist on jumping ahead to our larger societies,

What does "larger" or "later" have to do with morality? Something doesn't become "moral" by being big or new.

But please note, "where does morality come from?" and "where does each and every rule of a moral system come from?" are NOT the same question.

Well, it would depend on what's meant by your wording. Of course, any moral code is composed of "rules," at least insofar as it's a "code." But I'd put the question this way: what's the justification for ANY morality? In other words, when the question "why should I do that" is introduced, where does the buck stop, in each moral framework?

It can't stop at culture, or evolution, or chance, or nature, or any such thing...because evolution, chance and nature have no moral opinions about anything, and culture is supposed to be a product of one of these, so its current preferences are also just a matter of happenstance, and could have been otherwise, and thus are not finally morally binding on anybody.

IC -- when you say "morality comes from God..."

I didn't say that...at least, not here, and not yet. So far, I've been keeping to your defined terms, namely talking about your "fresh approach to morality," rather than any older one.

I'm happy to talk about the connection between morality and God, but it seems to me that the "fresh approach" you were aiming at doesn't automatically include that. Am I wrong?

[popeye1945]

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 >>

The only rational foundation for human morality is the survival and well-being of humans in general; our common biology is its logical centre.

[Immanuel Can]

The only rational foundation for human morality is the survival and well-being of humans in general; our common biology is its logical centre.

You use the words "rational" and "logical," but don't provide the rationale or the logic for the claim that human beings have any moral duties at all. You say that "survival" and "well-being" provide a "foundation," but don't show how that alleged "foundation" can be attached to even one single moral requirement.

Maybe you can. Maybe you can't. I'm pretty sure you can't. Either way, it's certainly not obvious that your claim is in any way correct. Absent an explanation of the logic you allege to be implied, why should we believe what you have said?

[Age]

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

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.

LOL nature and group.

None of them will make any particular moral precept obligatory or compelling upon somebody who wants to do differently.

Neither will a book with writings from a very small group of people with a very narrowed and limited understanding. So, that completely rules out your idea and belief, here, "immanuel can".

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.

But, the only thing you have got "immanuel can" is that book, which obviously came from one very small, narrowed, and closed thinking society, which is just what that little society thought. Which as you say and claim, 'is without merit'.

Obviously you can not have it both ways. That is, what 'your society' thinks 'is with merit', and, what 'other societies' think, '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"?

Look "immanuel can", you were asked, 'so where will we get it from?'

1. Why will you just not answer, and clarify?

2. you can not keep claiming, where you can not get it from, Accurately and Correctly, without knowing where you can get it from.

3. you keep claiming to know where you can not get it from, so where, exactly, can you get it from?

Show the readers that you do actually know what you keep pretending you know.

Because if you do not, then you are, obviously, only pretending you know.

[Age]

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.

You found evidence of the existence of societies at the stage being discussed (pre 10,000 years ago( having things like slavery? THAT is what we are talking about, yes?

We don't really know anything much about such societies; but from the dawn of our historical records, we find slavery was nearly a universal practice. And today, there are more slaves -- and of a worse sort-- in the world than at any time in history.

If you insist on jumping ahead to our larger societies,

What does "larger" or "later" have to do with morality? Something doesn't become "moral" by being big or new.

But please note, "where does morality come from?" and "where does each and every rule of a moral system come from?" are NOT the same question.

Well, it would depend on what's meant by your wording. Of course, any moral code is composed of "rules," at least insofar as it's a "code." But I'd put the question this way: what's the justification for ANY morality? In other words, when the question "why should I do that" is introduced, where does the buck stop, in each moral framework?

It can't stop at culture, or evolution, or chance, or nature, or any such thing...because evolution, chance and nature have no moral opinions about anything, and culture is supposed to be a product of one of these, so its current preferences are also just a matter of happenstance, and could have been otherwise, and thus are not finally morally binding on anybody.

IC -- when you say "morality comes from God..."

I didn't say that...at least, not here, and not yet. So far, I've been keeping to your defined terms, namely talking about your "fresh approach to morality," rather than any older one.

I'm happy to talk about the connection between morality and God, but it seems to me that the "fresh approach" you were aiming at doesn't automatically include that. Am I wrong?

What makes 'you' Wrong, "immanuel can", are those thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs, of 'yours', which are actually Wrong.

[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 >>

The only rational foundation for human morality is the survival and well-being of humans in general; our common biology is its logical centre.

So-called 'human morality' is clearly not 'morality', itself, if what was said, here, is 'human morality'.

[Immanuel Can]

1. Why will you just not answer, and clarify?

Because from your existing responses, I can already tell you're eiether not bright enough to understand any answer, and/or too contrarian to accept the truth anyway.

You asked. I answered and clarified. But that's it.

[Age]

The only rational foundation for human morality is the survival and well-being of humans in general; our common biology is its logical centre.

You use the words "rational" and "logical," but don't provide the rationale or the logic for the claim that human beings have any moral duties at all.

Only when one says and writes what you believe, here, then only then you will agree that 'that' is rational and logical. Until then you will not accept nor agree with any thing other than, 'morality comes from a thing with a penis'.

Which really is very funny to watch play out, here.

You say that "survival" and "well-being" provide a "foundation," but don't show how that alleged "foundation" can be attached to even one single moral requirement.

And, until you provide a single moral requirement no can show how foundations can be attached to it, and then, obviously.

Maybe you can. Maybe you can't. I'm pretty sure you can't. Either way, it's certainly not obvious that your claim is in any way correct. Absent an explanation of the logic you allege to be implied, why should we believe what you have said?

Notice how 'these human beings', 'back them', were stuck on and in 'believing things'.

[Age]

1. Why will you just not answer, and clarify?

Because from your existing responses, I can already tell you're eiether not bright enough to understand any answer, and/or too contrarian to accept the truth anyway.

You asked. I answered and clarified. But that's it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, 'this one' will not answer and clarify other people's questions because 'I' am, supposedly, 'not bright enough to understand absolutely any answer', it gives, and/or because 'I' am, supposedly, 'too contrarian to accept the truth', anyway.

'This one' has come up with some lame excuses before for not answering and for not clarifying, but this excuse, here, would have to be th lamest, so far.

[Age]

Look, explaining what 'morality' is, and the 'code' associated with 'morality', in 'a way' that is Truly easy to understand, and which no one could refute, is a very simple process.

Which makes watching 'these people' continually bicker and fight with each even more entertaining and amusing.

[accelafine]

Australians are so stupid they can't even make up their minds about whether to spell correctly or suck up to America

[Age]

Australians are so stupid they can't even make up their minds about whether to spell correctly or suck up to America

Is 'this' in reference to any one or any thing in particular?

If yes, then who, and/or what, is 'that', exactly?

And, if you do not answer, and clarify, then do not be surprised why so many people do not understand 'you' at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Australians are so stupid they can't even make up their minds about whether to spell correctly or suck up to America

What's your beef with Australians? I hear they're Socialists, these days. I'd think they'd be your buddies.

[MikeNovack]

But first may I ask, if I use the term "games" in the modern formal sense, will that be understood?? Thus "games" like "ultimatum game" or "prisoners dilemma", etc. Plus related terms like "Nash equilibrium".

Seeing no "i don't understand what you mean by these terms I will proceed. With the further understanding that these defined "games" actually map onto real social interactions of humans (and other critters). Some of these games have only one solution (for Nash equilibrium) but others do not.

Thus an "ultimatum game" has more than one solution (there is more than one way the "players" can settle on a strategy that yields optimum results. This is a good example for us to use when discussing morality (where it might come from). It is also interesting because our chimpanzee cousins are better at this game than we are (quicker to arrive at Nash equilibrium).

Essentially I am going to suggest that "morality" is the collection of rules. meta rules, not specific to any one of these "games" but generally applicable to many of them.

In the ultimatum game, one player proposes a division of some reward and the other either accepts the ultimatum (each gets their proposed share) or rejects that division (neither gets anything). In repeated play (multiple round) note that ONE strategy leading to Nash equilibrium is fair division. The proposer offers a 50:50 division which is accepted << so in each round each gets half the reward and no part of any reward is wasted >> Thus a meta rule "be fair" will reach a solution. In THIS game but also in many others, so it would become a "moral rule" for humans.

Please note, I am NOT saying following the rule is key but KNOWING the rule is (and presuming the other knows this also). Social interaction involves knowing how the other is likely to respond to your choices.