Philosophy Now Forum

vestigial artifice is right. religion has nothing to do with morality (and is rather a consequence of it), but if morality were intuitable and 'objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings' let's phrase it, we'd still not be able to say that any individual ought to be moral just because moral behavior is objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings. you still don't get your 'ought' here. in any case it's a much better and honest attempt to establish an objectivity of morality than is the religious attempt to ground it in a god.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:00 pm vestigial artifice is right. religion has nothing to do with morality (and is rather a consequence of it), but if morality were intuitable and 'objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings' let's phrase it, we'd still not be able to say that any individual ought to be moral just because moral behavior is objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings. you still don't get your 'ought' here. in any case it's a much better and honest attempt to establish an objectivity of morality than is the religious attempt to ground it in a god.

Exactly. And we can see a wide range of (what are not really) moralities amongst animals. Those aren't oughts either. They are strategies or things that worked (though perhaps they won't in the near future). They are heuristics. Patterns that worked in certain niches.

One could make the argument that we can take these strategies into consideration, since they may very well indicate patterns of behavior/attitudes that have helped us. On the other hand, the rate at which we change the environment, patterns of human interaction, types of most-used tools and more, means that genetically inherited attitudes and behavioral tendencies may no longer be appropriate.

And it is all 'is' stuff. Everything can be handled without bringing morality into the description. Parsimony strongly suggests leaving hallucinated oughts out of any scientific description. We can completely describe it as tendencies and existing patterns of attitude. Adding in concepts like 'ought' do not explain something not explained by physiological, behavioral and attitudinal descriptions.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:00 pm vestigial artifice is right. religion has nothing to do with morality (and is rather a consequence of it), but if morality were intuitable and 'objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings' let's phrase it, we'd still not be able to say that any individual ought to be moral just because moral behavior is objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings. you still don't get your 'ought' here. in any case it's a much better and honest attempt to establish an objectivity of morality than is the religious attempt to ground it in a god.

You raised very good points but unfortunately you are degrading yourself by degrading & insulting others for no good reasons at all [blindly seduced by a mob] and that is because you are ignorant of your own self, psychological state and nature.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38820

Your problem here in your inability to align moral elements with evolutionary elements for human beings is because you are blinded and stuck in the dogmatic paradigm of the ancients' views of 'what is morality' [ongoing for 2500 years or more ] which rightly should be critiqued severely as done by Hume, Kant and others.

Humanity has been able to progress to this far is due to the inherent human ability to detect patterns, thus principles and therefrom developed model to facilitate progress for the many others.
I am aware there are patterns of morality-proper within empirical reality of the state of humans which we can develop moral principles and model them to guide humans for moral progress.
Note the critical "ONLY to guide" not to enforce with threats of hell [religion] nor legal punishments [politics].

It is not only to guide but what is most critical is from our models there is POTENTIAL and opportunities for humans to research into the detailed mechanisms and therefrom made improvements to the mechanisms to increase the average moral competence of FUTURE generations [not the present, that is too late already].

Btw, if you continue to degrade my nic unilaterally, this will be my last response to your posts [many are reasonable and rational].

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:00 pm vestigial artifice is right. religion has nothing to do with morality (and is rather a consequence of it), but if morality were intuitable and 'objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings' let's phrase it, we'd still not be able to say that any individual ought to be moral just because moral behavior is objectively rooted in evolutionarily stable strategies for human beings. you still don't get your 'ought' here. in any case it's a much better and honest attempt to establish an objectivity of morality than is the religious attempt to ground it in a god.

Do you understand why VA classified this post as insulting?

hold on i thought everybody did that here. Dangerpants started it bro and i thought it was like a trend so i wuz just playing along.

if this isnt true I'm really really sorry and I apologize unreservedly to VA. 

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:09 pm hold on i thought everybody did that here. Dangerpants started it bro and i thought it was like a trend so i wuz just playing along.

if this isnt true I'm really really sorry and I apologize unreservedly to VA. 

I still don't see the insult in the post. Do you also see it?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:09 pm hold on i thought everybody did that here. Dangerpants started it bro and i thought it was like a trend so i wuz just playing along.

if this isnt true I'm really really sorry and I apologize unreservedly to VA. 

Lol. Once long ago in a thread that was deleted because of excessive racism (sorry, it's a religion not a race so totally not racism!), Ventricle Entropy attempted to demonstrate how serious a man of letters he is, and how much lesser I am by deconstructing my name into "flash danger pants". FlapDoodyPants considered this unimaginative, and thus resolved to never write Vaginal Aquafresh's name correctly ever again.

The real game though is to see how far you can break it before people don't even know who you are talking about.

cool. as long as vermillion aviator... er, i mean veritas aequitas, knows what's going on here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:39 pm the failure in most arguments lie in how the argument is made...

the one making the argument takes a statement and isolates it..

for example, take this typical argument and see/spot the problem...

"Abortion is wrong"

this statement has no context... wrong compared to what?
Ok, one might expand the argument to this:

"Abortion is wrong because all life is sacred"

if all life is sacred, then why aren't you arguing for the end of the
"Death penalty?" or perhaps for a greater amount of money to
cancer research? Cancer will kill over 600,00 people this year...
who not crusade as hard against cancer ..as some do against abortion?

this take on the abortion argument is about a context issue..
why is abortion a "greater" crime than other crimes?
on might say, fetus has no voice... but isn't that the point?
a fetus cannot speak until after it is born...a baby has no self-awareness
no conscious self until 15 to 18 months of age... on might make the argument
that human life begins with this self-awareness...

why is abortion a bigger issue than the death penalty?
start here... put some context into the abortion issue by an
comparison against the death penalty...

how is one necessary to stop and the other isn't?

compare and contrast abortion to something else....

Kropotkin

No matter how hard people argue for the existence of objective moral rules, they always have a hidden agenda or goal.