Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[Immanuel Can]

I'm suggesting if an obligatory social species...

You're amphibolizing...you're using a vague, ambiguous expression to generate a fallacious argument.

The phrase "obligatory social species" can be understood with two different meanings -- meanings that don't imply each other.

1. It can mean, "a species that has no option but to be social." It's "obliged to be social," in the sense that it lives in groups.

2. It could be understood to mean, "a species that has moral obligations."

But arguing that a species is, in sense 1 "obligatory" does not at all suggest, as in sense 2, that it has "moral obligations." That second one would have to be shown: for there are species which are, in sense 1, "social" but behave in ways we would not at all characterize as "moral" or as even "morally capable." Male lions in prides kill cubs to put the females into early estrus. Killer whales are known to kill sharks and then just rip out their livers and leave the rest floating. Hippos kill anything that they find even slightly irritating or inconvenient. Many primates cannibalize their own kind...

Being a social animal does not imply morality at all. To be honest, you'd have to drop the word "obligatory," or disambiguate it, and then prove your case. For sense 1 does not go even one step toward indicating sense 2.

[FlashDangerpants]

If it's anything at all like that, it won't do the heavy lifting of establishing true or certain moral facts. It won't work for you as an answer to IC's question about why anybody has any moral obligation either. It will only give a reason why a social monkey would find it useful to adopt cooperative behaviour when in the presence of other social monkeys.

Well, a lot more than useful for the individual "social monkey". I'm suggesting if an obligatory social species (note: I'm not certain ALL monkey species are obligatory social; not ALL ape species are) if behavior in social settings were unpredictable the species would not survive. That we simply don't have obligatory social species that do not have species morality.

You needed a different type of relation between the social animal and the obligation, not a bigger version of the same type.

The fact that it is prudent, if the monkey desires a certain type of interaction with other monkeys, that he address them in a certain respectful manner for instance is not a moral reason for him to do so, just an expedient one. If we say that not only is it prudent, but it is urgent, not to do so would result in disaster, death, and the end of the species, nothing changed other than the magnitude of an irrelevant variable. The imperative didn't change type from prudential to moral just by getting bigger.

But I think we need spend more time looking at "what it is". For example, in some cases there might not be a (moral) reason for which action the right action and which the wrong BUT THERE MUST BE AGREEMENT. In other words, that moral rule is more or less "right to take the socially agreed action" and "wrong to take the other action" ----- you should drive on the agreed side of the road (or people get killed). But there would be no moral reason for which side that was.

This is a continuing pursuit of prudential rather than moral concerns. Arguing that it provides a basis for morality is difficult unless you are a moral sceptic of some sort. It is fine for me, I am a moral sceptic. I can and do base my explanation of moral life on such things, but I have the advantage of not needing to cross the is/ought gap at all. If you are not a sceptic, you will not get over that gap on this rickety contraption.

If you are a sceptic, then carry on I guess. Although I am not certain where you are trying to go with this thread if that is the case.

[MikeNovack]

Flash, remember I am treating morality as the knowledge. When the individual chooses to do the right or wrong action, prudence indeed would be one of the factors used in that decision. Prudence hasn't affected which action was right or wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, remember I am treating morality as the knowledge.

I prefer to use words in accordance with their meanings.

[MikeNovack]

Flash, remember I am treating morality as the knowledge.

I prefer to use words in accordance with their meanings.

I chose a bad example, one that too easily allowed "prudence" to cloud the issue of my claim that DETAILS of a moraal rule might be arbitrary rather than moral. So let's start over. the first three moral rules you learned were right/wrong way to eliminate, cover your nakedness, and how to get food into your mouth.

Let's take the second. Your tribe/band will have a PARTICULAR way to cover your nakedness. Let's say for a male, that is to take a strip of softened animal skin, about a foot wide and about seven feet long (shorter pieces sen together. It is worn by first going around the waist (in front), tied in a half knot with one end longer. The long end is passed back between the legs, up under the waist band, and hangs down the back. OR perhaps with your tribe, after tying the knot, rotate around the waist so that the knot at the back and then bring the long flap forward between the legs, under the band in front to hang down in front. OR perhaps your tribe uses a completely different form of loin cloth, two pieces, one a narrow strip tired around the waist as a belt with the wider strip between the legs and under this belt front and back to hang down both front and back.

I am saying which way your tribe "decided" was the right way not 'moral" but arbitrary. Even though there might well be a tribal myth explaining WHY it was right that the knot be worn in front or in back. << that the individual conforms with the tribal norm another matter>>

Agreed? You can't see a "prudential" factor in why the trie chose knot in front or knot in back.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, remember I am treating morality as the knowledge.

I prefer to use words in accordance with their meanings.

I chose a bad example, one that too easily allowed "prudence" to cloud the issue of my claim that DETAILS of a moraal rule might be arbitrary rather than moral. So let's start over. the first three moral rules you learned were right/wrong way to eliminate, cover your nakedness, and how to get food into your mouth.

Well, there's manners and there's morals. I feel there's some conflating going on here that might not be justified.

Let's take the second. Your tribe/band will have a PARTICULAR way to cover your nakedness. Let's say for a male, that is to take a strip of softened animal skin, about a foot wide and about seven feet long (shorter pieces sen together. It is worn by first going around the waist (in front), tied in a half knot with one end longer. The long end is passed back between the legs, up under the waist band, and hangs down the back. OR perhaps with your tribe, after tying the knot, rotate around the waist so that the knot at the back and then bring the long flap forward between the legs, under the band in front to hang down in front. OR perhaps your tribe uses a completely different form of loin cloth, two pieces, one a narrow strip tired around the waist as a belt with the wider strip between the legs and under this belt front and back to hang down both front and back.

I am saying which way your tribe "decided" was the right way not 'moral" but arbitrary. Even though there might well be a tribal myth explaining WHY it was right that the knot be worn in front or in back. << that the individual conforms with the tribal norm another matter>>

Agreed? You can't see a "prudential" factor in why the trie chose knot in front or knot in back.

It's a stretch to say that following the tribe's customary style when tying up a banana hammock for your old chap is a moral requirement. I can agree that under many circumstances, it is immoral to walk around with your dick out, but to cover your genitals with a fine pair of flared trousers is at worst unfashionable.

Even if you force this matter, where could it be taking you? The moral "good" that is tied to dutiful observance of customs and manners is conformism, which seems grim to me. Meanwhile unless you are a relativist you don't want to be constructing morality out of social customs and local norms.

Finally, in a thread whose title promises "bases for morality", and coming from the guy who complains about conversations drifting away from their topic... where did the badness of being naked come from? Why is it bad for the species to go extinct? What's with all the smuggling going on here?

[MikeNovack]

No, I am saying the particular details o how NOT morality. I was trying to give a better example of how PARTS of a moral rule can be arbitrary. My first example unfortunately made it look"prudential".

Why are you expecting me to defend the reverse of what I said?

[FlashDangerpants]

Within this thread, it is definitely going to be argued that there must be true, certain, eternal immutable moral facts because the alternative is meaningless anarchy. That argument is a bust, it amounts to a claim that there ought to be so therefore there is.

Not quite ought therefore is. Possibly is, therefore must also be.

We are obligatory social animals (is) We evolved as such.
Therefore we need (must have evolved with us) the mechanisms for our social groups to function. Simply not going to work otherwise.

Does this text that I am quoting here have anything to do with what you are currently on about? Because I am just not seeing it.

[MikeNovack]

[
Within this thread, it is definitely going to be argued that there must be true, certain, eternal immutable moral facts because the alternative is meaningless anarchy. That argument is a bust, it amounts to a claim that there ought to be so therefore there is.

I would STRONGLY disagree.

Human morality can only be for humans. So how could human morality be eternal? Humans have only existed for a few million years. And given the typical duration of mammalian species, unlikely to exist a few million years in the future. Evolution is not directed, before humans eeolved no certainty that they would.

[FlashDangerpants]

[
Within this thread, it is definitely going to be argued that there must be true, certain, eternal immutable moral facts because the alternative is meaningless anarchy. That argument is a bust, it amounts to a claim that there ought to be so therefore there is.

I would STRONGLY disagree.

Human morality can only be for humans. So how could human morality be eternal? Humans have only existed for a few million years. And given the typical duration of mammalian species, unlikely to exist a few million years in the future. Evolution is not directed, before humans eeolved no certainty that they would.

What have you been drinking? Immanuel Can is most definitely going to argue that God is eternal, that his moral positions are unchanging and that moral truth which flows from those sources is immutable. He routinely does argue that without absolute moral fact there can only be anarchy. Not everything is about you Mike.

I don't really know what you intend to argue for, and I can't really distinguish working arguments even at the level of Mannie's efforts in your recent posts. So I wouldn't attempt to predict your arguments, you are too erratic for that.

As an aside, there is no reason at all why any secular moral realist wouldn't consider moral facts to be immutable and eternal. They would simply have to posit some sort of moral property that exists independent of the observer and is present irrespective of whether any humans exist to know about them or not. That is a relatively normal position within the field and falls under the general heading of Moral Naturalism.

[MikeNovack]

What have you been drinking? Immanuel Can is most definitely going to argue that God is eternal, that his moral positions are unchanging and that moral truth which flows from those sources is immutable. He routinely does argue that without absolute moral fact there can only be anarchy. Not everything is about you Mike.
.........
consider moral facts to be immutable and eternal. They would simply have to posit some sort of moral property that exists independent of the observer and is present irrespective of whether any humans exist to know about them or not. That is a relatively normal position within the field and falls under the general heading of Moral Naturalism.

Well IC is also going to argue that his god created man, and therefore POSSIBLE to have created a moral system that would be suited to the critter when created.

Eternal? Look, the moral system for us humans not the same as the moral system for close relatives, the bonobos. Not the same as for the critter that was our last common ancestor. Let's go back to that point in time (I'll use LCA for that last common ancestor).

Here we are, 6-7 million years ago. The species LCA exists and with it morality suited to the LCA (they are also obligatory social animals). At this point neither humans nor bonobos exist AND there is no assurance that they ever will exist. If human morality were eternal it would have to exist along with the morality systems suited to all other obligatory social animals that do not exists and never will.

Or try to look at it this way. We in fact have three species in the Pan/Homo genus (it's only by tradition and "politics" considered separate genera). But that was not preordained. Suppose only going to be one, call that MAN. So the eternal "morality for MAN" already exists? Pray tell, does it look like mrality for chimps or morality for bonobos or morality for us humans << MAN could be anywhere n the chimp-bonobo-huan range >>

[FlashDangerpants]

What have you been drinking? Immanuel Can is most definitely going to argue that God is eternal, that his moral positions are unchanging and that moral truth which flows from those sources is immutable. He routinely does argue that without absolute moral fact there can only be anarchy. Not everything is about you Mike.
.........
consider moral facts to be immutable and eternal. They would simply have to posit some sort of moral property that exists independent of the observer and is present irrespective of whether any humans exist to know about them or not. That is a relatively normal position within the field and falls under the general heading of Moral Naturalism.

Well IC is also going to argue that his god created man, and therefore POSSIBLE to have created a moral system that would be suited to the critter when created.

Eternal? Look, the moral system for us humans not the same as the moral system for close relatives, the bonobos. Not the same as for the critter that was our last common ancestor. Let's go back to that point in time (I'll use LCA for that last common ancestor).

Here we are, 6-7 million years ago. The species LCA exists and with it morality suited to the LCA (they are also obligatory social animals). At this point neither humans nor bonobos exist AND there is no assurance that they ever will exist. If human morality were eternal it would have to exist along with the morality systems suited to all other obligatory social animals that do not exists and never will.

Or try to look at it this way. We in fact have three species in the Pan/Homo genus (it's only by tradition and "politics" considered separate genera). But that was not preordained. Suppose only going to be one, call that MAN. So the eternal "morality for MAN" already exists? Pray tell, does it look like mrality for chimps or morality for bonobos or morality for us humans << MAN could be anywhere n the chimp-bonobo-huan range >>

I explained for you how IC's argument is structured in so far as he has ever actually presented it. Most of it is missing because he is careful to tell you his argument is watertight but also careful to avoid letting you know what it is. Nevertheless, having investigated the matter in the past, I gave out correct information to the extent it is available.

It isn't my argument, you can tell that because I stated right at the start what is wrong with it. When I did that, please note that I addressed the content of his position, which is something that all capable philosophers will do. It's out there as a short cut so that somebody who wishes to spend time in conversation with IC can use it to get past the old stuff and make him write something new. Maybe. If they are persistent.

If you have an objection to IC's argument, then sure, that's great. But I think he's an obvious cheap fraud with a shit argument anyway. Persuading me isn't really the point I would imagine.

Your counter to his argument is bad though as presently stated. While I pointed you at moral naturalism, that was by way of an example of the many philosophers who argue that moral properties exist with mind-independence, it is not an example of what IC believes nor of what I believe. You should however show more respect anyway, those guys have a serious argument and your assumption that you can causally dismiss them to shout about Bonobo ethics as if nobody has thought of that stuff before is hubristic.

Mister Can most definitely isn't going to argue what you wrote there though: "Well IC is also going to argue that his god created man, and therefore POSSIBLE to have created a moral system that would be suited to the critter when created." This is really an example of a problem you have with reading what other people write. That position would be utterly incompatible with the rest of his take. His position is firmly that morality doesn't change, and that it can't. He has been clear on that much for a long long time. Some contingent version of morality created to suit a species is the sort of thing he couldn't possibly accept.

[MikeNovack]

Which is why created this thread "with gods or without".

At the moment, still "with gods". But I am not willing to take such a limited view of what god could or could not do. On one hand, a god could create a deterministic universe, well defined in all aspects of what will happen in creation. I can understand IC's position on morality and Man because this is the sort of god he believes in. If god created a fully deterministic universe COULD create eternal morality that "fitted' humans as humans were going to be created.

But SIMPLY believing in god the creator does not lead to that. I would not presume that god intended to be creating a deterministic universe. The position that god could ONLY create a deterministic universe is limiting god. I believe a creator god could create a universe where life evolved as it would, not being "directed by" the creator god. I do not consider belief in a creator god means disbelief in evolution. But in that case, i do not see how "morality" (clearly species specific) could be created as immutable. Could not be independent of the evolutionary process.

[FlashDangerpants]

i do not see how "morality" (clearly species specific) could be created as immutable.

You should try reading some philosophy some day, it will broaden your mind.

[Gary Childress]

i do not see how "morality" (clearly species specific) could be created as immutable.

You should try reading some philosophy some day, it will broaden your mind.

With all due respect, the fact that he's here on this website probably means he's read "some" philosophy.