The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 6:56 pm

Actually, what turns out to be in my self-interest, as with most moral precepts, is that everybody ELSE should obey them, but I should leave myself free to cheat, or to exempt myself when I want to. Nietzsche saw that.

Prisons are full of people who think the rules only apply to others.

That is true. But there are also many people imprisoned for illegitimate reasons. For example, prisons in China are full of political prisoners...and they're used for organ transplants and other purposes. So without a fixed ethic, how does one prove that China's justice system is evil, and ours is good?

Plus, most people have empathy, so witnessing the suffering of others makes them feel bad.

Not so bad that they fail to put self-interest first, apparently. Didn't you say the real reason was "self-interest"?

Not feeling bad is also in their own self-interest.

Well, you may "feel bad" for stealing. But it won't stop somebody doing it, if he decides his "self-interest" is in the loot. Why is his self-interest "bad" and the other "good"? There's no objective ethics, right? So how would we decide?

Duty? Not really.

Then you leave us free to disregard it at our convenience.

You only act because of duty??

The word "duty" is only one of the many placeholders we have for the idea that one "ought," or "owes it," or "it's the right thing to do, even when you don't want to do it," and such other expressions. And in that sense, all ethics aims at specifying our moral "duties." That's the correct term in philosophical ethics.

So now you know, I guess.

We have evolved social connections with others. We're social by "nature".

Not helpful. We've also allegedly "evolved" a whole lot of habits traditional called "evil." So why should we reject one kind of "nature" and only affirm another? That's the question that any ethics has to answer -- how do we know our duty when our feelings and interests go one way, and what's "right" goes the opposite way.

There is a preference for non-evil.

There isn't, actually. If there were always a preference for non-evil, nobody would ever do evil, right?

Humans are guided by emotions and reason. We can choose the direction we want to go.

Wait: so human beings, alone of all "animals," are magically delivered from having to follow nature? How does that make sense, if we're animals?

You mean that we can't or shouldn't use our human reasoning and/or human emotions?

No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking why, if you and I are "just animals," you and I should be expected to follow a moral code, contrary to some of our impulses and inclinations, when we don't expect any such thing of other animals.

Like we shouldn't use our opposable thumbs because some animals don't have opposable thumbs and we should be like them??

Point to the moral "thumb" you think human beings possess. You can't, because it's not like an opposable thumb; there are no physiological markers for morality...a person who is a humanitarian is just as biologically human, and has the same physiological markers, as an axe-murderer.

Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

You never heard of evolutionary biology as the basis for morality?

I've seen people try to argue for that. It's never very convincing, because "having evolved" is, even if true, merely an "is," and what's required is proof of an "ought."

That seems to be a misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think it is. It's pretty clear that organisms that are failing or being eliminated by the process are going to suffer...and die.

Suffering does not necessarily mean dying.

But dying means suffering. And a whole species dying means a whole lot of pain and suffering, followed by extinction. The evolutionary story tells us this happens over, and over, and over...and that there must be millions of "failed" evolutionary "attempts" for every survival-conducive improvement in a species. So evolution tells us to expect one whackload of suffering and death, and to acccept it as just part of the necessary process.

We've tried survival-of-the-fittest moralities in the past.

What are you thinking of? When did we do that?

Thugs often take control of societies. Temporarily.

Thugs? You think "thugs" are attempting a Social Darwinist moral project? Which "thugs"? (Literally, "thugs" means "Thugees," Hindu cultic worshippers of Shiva, as I recall, famous for waylaying travellers.)

So if you don't mean Thugees, name your "thugs."

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 3:41 pm Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

IC is quite correct here. The cultures of obligatory social animals is notT in their DNA. The evolutionary unit is the group of social animals. By this is meant the specific cultures.

Culture isn't genetic either, of course. So it's not going to help with DNA, or with morality. Different cultures differ on their claims.

The correct way to express the belief that ethics/morality is inherited would be to make that clear "in the culture", not "in the DNA".

Is the correct morality expressed in the culture of Western Leftism, Western conservatism, Polytheisms, Marxism, or Islamism, or something else? They all disagree. So some of these cultures must be wrong, if any one of them is delivering to us some ethical parameters we should believe. Which ones are faulty, and which one has it right? Or mostly right, let us say.

I would hold "we know morality exists" (some things are right to do and others wrong to do) because we were potty trained.

Ummm...so bladder tension is proof that morality exists? That seems a little "strained."

Well, at least you've captured one essential feature of ethics: that we don't find we ever need to employ them until there's a "tension" between what we want to do and what we ought to. That much is a fairly important realization.

We all fail God and God disapproves of each and every one of us.

That's not my interpretation of Christianity.

But, yeah, some people think that way.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 10:05 pm

We all fail God and God disapproves of each and every one of us.

That's not my interpretation of Christianity.

But, yeah, some people think that way.

Actually, maybe my characterization is more in tune with Protestantism. The Catholic Church might be different. I've always heard that Catholicism has a fixation with the virgin Mary, which seems a little odd to me.

Mary is 'down to earth'. People can relate to her and she can advocate for people.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 8:55 pm We are all "sinners". We all fail God and God disapproves of each and every one of us.

The Bible says this.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 3:23-24)

So yes, we are all, initially, displeasing to God.

But that ain't the end of the story. Read the rest, and you might feel better.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 10:09 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 10:05 pm

We all fail God and God disapproves of each and every one of us.

That's not my interpretation of Christianity.

But, yeah, some people think that way.

Actually, maybe my characterization is more in tune with Protestantism. The Catholic Church might be different. I've always heard that Catholicism has a fixation with the virgin Mary, which seems a little odd to me.

I think there is a deep yearning for more of the feminine in God. They found a way to do this without openly going against the sexism built into Christianity. Some say the Holy Spirit is neutral (genderwise) and some early Christianity had it as Female. But the other two aspects or parts of the trinity are clearly male. And males have the main leading roles. On an intuitive level this has to bother people. Catholicism seems to me to have more mystery, heavy symbolism, emotional even non-verbal elements. I not surprised it was there rather than Protestantism where Mary got so much more central.

That is true. But there are also many people imprisoned for illegitimate reasons. For example, prisons in China are full of political prisoners...and they're used for organ transplants and other purposes. So without a fixed ethic, how does one prove that China's justice system is evil, and ours is good?

You think there is one "fixed" ethic in the world?

How does one prove anything? By reasoning. The theists and humanists do it.

The word "duty" is only one of the many placeholders we have for the idea that one "ought," or "owes it," or "it's the right thing to do, even when you don't want to do it," and such other expressions. And in that sense, all ethics aims at specifying our moral "duties." That's the correct term in philosophical ethics.

"Duty" has a specific meaning. I don't think it's the correct one to use from my side, in this discussion.

So now you know, I guess.

Get off your arrogant horse, please.

You're making this very unpleasant.

There isn't, actually. If there were always a preference for non-evil, nobody would ever do evil, right?

Who says that the words "always" and "nobody" apply to ethics?

If everybody always did the one right thing, then the concept of ethics would not even exist.

No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking why, if you and I are "just animals," you and I should be expected to follow a moral code, contrary to some of our impulses and inclinations, when we don't expect any such thing of other animals.

Because humans have the capability?

Because one moral code does not apply across different species?

Point to the moral "thumb" you think human beings possess.

You missed the entire point of why I used that example.

You never heard of evolutionary biology as the basis for morality?

I've seen people try to argue for that. It's never very convincing, because "having evolved" is, even if true, merely an "is," and what's required is proof of an "ought."

The "is" produces a way of thinking and reacting which leads to some behaviours being preferred over others. Therefore, right behaviour and wrong behaviour.

Suffering does not necessarily mean dying.

But dying means suffering.

A dog is an animal, but an animal is not a dog.

Thugs often take control of societies. Temporarily.

Thugs? You think "thugs" are attempting a Social Darwinist moral project? Which "thugs"? (Literally, "thugs" means "Thugees," Hindu cultic worshippers of Shiva, as I recall, famous for waylaying travellers.)

So if you don't mean Thugees, name your "thugs."

Kings, dictators, demagogues, who push societies into wars and produce the chaos of war and the aftermaths where survival of the fittest plays out.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 1:14 pm

You never heard of evolutionary biology as the basis for morality?

I've seen people try to argue for that. It's never very convincing, because "having evolved" is, even if true, merely an "is," and what's required is proof of an "ought."

The "is" produces a way of thinking and reacting which leads to some behaviours being preferred over others. Therefore, right behaviour and wrong behaviour.

[/quote]

You cannot DERIVE an ought from an is (a set of just "is" statements). Derive has a specific meaning in formal logic. That would mean, given a set of postulates (none including an ought) derive a theorem "x is the morally right action in this situation" IDENTIFYING that x. Note that is not the same as "given an x and a y, determine which is the more moral << NOT saying where these proposed candidates x and y came from >>

The evolutionary argument is NOT suggesting the the system of morality for this obligatory social animal was DETERMINED. Evolution is a random process, not a derivation.

"Derivation" is not the only way to go.

Evolution is not a random process.

Mutation may be random but selection is not.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 3:10 pm Evolution is not a random process.

Mutation may be random but selection is not.

Disagree ....... selection is random with weighted probability. That A has a survival to reproduction probability greater than B does mot mean that A will survive and B but that this is more likely.

Random does not necessarily mean chaotic disorder or complete mayhem. It can mean order that is produced by a natural system that was not designed by a conscious being for a specific purpose. Hence, if there is no God or designer, then evolution would be "random" in so far as what it produces is not necessarily the most 'appropriate' according to some moral or qualitative criteria, but rather it produces whatever it happens to be capable of producing and happens to produce. In that sense it means unguided by specific intent or undesigned by a conscious designer. So, for example, a crystal formation in a particular cave is "random" if there is no designer who has a specific intent for its creation in that particular place.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:17 pm Random does not necessarily mean chaotic disorder or complete mayhem. It can mean order that is produced by a natural system that was not designed by a conscious being for a specific purpose. Hence, evolution can be "random" in so far as what it produces is not necessarily the most 'appropriate' according to some moral or qualitative criteria, but rather it produces whatever it happens to be capable of producing and happens to produce. In that sense it means unguided by specific intent.

It can be used to mean "unguided by specific intent".

But what are the "conscious beings" trying to say by using the word in this thread?

I can tell you why I don't call evolution 'random' ... Humans have been skewed towards a certain set of beliefs and behaviours by evolution. The result of evolution is not random.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2026 5:32 pm I can tell you why I don't call evolution 'random' ... Humans have been skewed towards a certain set of beliefs and behaviours by evolution. The result of evolution is not random.

Misunderstanding what I am meaning by random.

What evolves WILL be a"solution". In this case our cultures will have evolved a working/consistent system of "morality". Note that indefinite article "a". There might have been any number of other "solutions" that WOULD have been a working/consistent solution that were not what did evolve. Evolution did not result in THE morality for humans.

Keep in mind that we are only talking about the original evolution, in effect 99% of the time of our existence. This has nothing to do with our current situation where we are no longer living in bands of ~50 individuals. That is a different problem, morality for humans living en masse. But there is a relationship. We expect of a system of morality that it will give the same result in situations between which we see no MORALLY RELEVANT difference. I suggest we may need to add to that "and no difference between the situations in terms of how well they match the original group size (band of ~50) and modern mass society".

Ah, we need THE morality.

There can be only ONE.

Oddly enough, theists don't have THE morality.