Philosophy Now Forum

Since morality and human behavior are the same, and behavior is merely what it is, the future of morality is only to be identical to existence and thus to be distinguished from nothing and no longer have a place to play in human imagination or reality. Therefore, morality is no longer compelling, but means nothing. Its meaning is utterly lost and destroyed.

Morality is all about the future. If there is no future - there is no morality.

Behaviour is not "merely what it is". Behaviour is a noun. Behaving is a verb. Change in behaviour is called "learning".

Some collective behaviour will bring extinction upon us sooner.
Some collective behaviour will bring extinction upon us later.

Later extinction is better than sooner extinction.

"Later extinction" is moral.
"Sooner extinction" is immoral.

Human actions are driven by the various functions from the different faculty in the brain.
Example of functions are senses, intuition, emotions, intelligence, reason, sex, etc.
Among the above function is "the function of morality" that is dormant and not very active within the majority of humans.
However there is a trend of increasing activation of the moral function which is represented by the mirror neurons and other neural circuits.
This trend of increasing moral function is continuing to improve toward the future.

Note the evidence of this moral trend,
It was only 200 -100 years ago 'chattel slavery' was prevalent and nothing was done to prevent such chattel slavery.
However at present, all recognized nations has accepted the UN UHDR on Slavery to abolish all forms of slavery.
Whilst acceptance do not mean full compliance, it does represent the trend of a future for morality.

While the moral progress is not satisfactory at present, there are obvious trends of increasing and evolution of moral activities within humanity. These are signs there is a future for morality from the philosophical perspective [btw not political].

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:52 pm Since morality and human behavior are the same, and behavior is merely what it is, the future of morality is only to be identical to existence and thus to be distinguished from nothing and no longer have a place to play in human imagination or reality.

Morality or moral philosophies are not "identical" to human behavior, rather they are rational systems, principles or axioms, which attempt to distinguish what human behavior is moral or immoral, on the grounds of various axioms or principles.

Therefore, morality is no longer compelling, but means nothing. Its meaning is utterly lost and destroyed.

Your begging the question, since for one you haven't provided any system, philosophy, or definition of morality to begin with.

If we use the Common Law system or philosophy of the US and the UK, and its founding moral axioms, principles, and procedures, for example (as per Supreme Court Justice Holmes), behavior which is considered to be immoral or illegal is based on notions such as "harm" or "damages", along with human notions such as irrationality, rationality, intentions, pre-meditation, and so forth; with law and all of the specific "rules" and so forth having evolved or developed over time, from older moral or legal systems (e.x. Exodus, Rome, etc), taking into account precedents based on previous court cases.

Beyond imposing a bare minimum of morality on people by "force" (e.x. prohibiting rape, murder, child pornography, etc), the law more or less allows a person to be "immoral" or the "have a bad heart" on a private or personal basis, so long as they don't trip over the fine "line" and violate the rulers. So it obviously is not the "be all end all" in moral philosophy, but if anything just a bare minimum of imposition and a step above anarchy, "law of the jungle", blood feuds, private vengeance or vendettas, or greater social ills which would presumably exist on some level in anarchy or more primitives, "3rd world" conditions than presumably exist in "civilized" societies or 1st world countries, and so on and so on.

---

So I'm curious, how do you equate any and all "human behavior" with "morality"? And if so, then what do you equate with "immorality"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:15 am Human actions are driven by the various functions from the different faculty in the brain.
Example of functions are senses, intuition, emotions, intelligence, reason, sex, etc.
Among the above function is "the function of morality" that is dormant and not very active within the majority of humans.
However there is a trend of increasing activation of the moral function which is represented by the mirror neurons and other neural circuits.
This trend of increasing moral function is continuing to improve toward the future.

Note the evidence of this moral trend,
It was only 200 -100 years ago 'chattel slavery' was prevalent and nothing was done to prevent such chattel slavery.
However at present, all recognized nations has accepted the UN UHDR on Slavery to abolish all forms of slavery.
Whilst acceptance do not mean full compliance, it does represent the trend of a future for morality.

While the moral progress is not satisfactory at present, there are obvious trends of increasing and evolution of moral activities within humanity. These are signs there is a future for morality from the philosophical perspective [btw not political].

As far as the philosophy of the law goes, people are held without excuse, and cannot claim "ignorance" of the law, even if this means it potentially falls the "hardest" on the genuinely ignorant.

So no, as per the legal and moral philosophy, a person cannot claim to have a "lack of activation of mirror neurons" or whatever other borderline deterministic philosophical axioms you are attempting to reduce it to.

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:15 am Human actions are driven by the various functions from the different faculty in the brain.
Example of functions are senses, intuition, emotions, intelligence, reason, sex, etc.
Among the above function is "the function of morality" that is dormant and not very active within the majority of humans.
However there is a trend of increasing activation of the moral function which is represented by the mirror neurons and other neural circuits.
This trend of increasing moral function is continuing to improve toward the future.

Note the evidence of this moral trend,
It was only 200 -100 years ago 'chattel slavery' was prevalent and nothing was done to prevent such chattel slavery.
However at present, all recognized nations has accepted the UN UHDR on Slavery to abolish all forms of slavery.
Whilst acceptance do not mean full compliance, it does represent the trend of a future for morality.

While the moral progress is not satisfactory at present, there are obvious trends of increasing and evolution of moral activities within humanity. These are signs there is a future for morality from the philosophical perspective [btw not political].

As far as the philosophy of the law goes, people are held without excuse, and cannot claim "ignorance" of the law, even if this means it potentially falls the "hardest" on the genuinely ignorant.

So no, as per the legal and moral philosophy, a person cannot claim to have a "lack of activation of mirror neurons" or whatever other borderline deterministic philosophical axioms you are attempting to reduce it to.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between
1. Philosophy of Politics
and
2. Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

Yes, in secular law of legislature, 'ignorance is no defense';

But in Morality, there is no question of 'ignorance is no defense'.
There is no elements of enforcement and punishments related to moral oughts and standards either.
Show me where is this mentioned within the topic of Morality and Ethics.
In Morality, moral oughts and standards are merely guides for future improvements.
Do you get this?
Else what is your counter.

The 'lack of activation of mirror neurons related to morality' indicate there is need to improve the activation so that the moral compass/quotient of the individual will be increased.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:51 am You don't seem to be able to distinguish between
1. Philosophy of Politics
and
2. Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

The two things interrelate, obviously.

Yes, in secular law of legislature, 'ignorance is no defense';

But in Morality, there is no question of 'ignorance is no defense'.
There is no elements of enforcement and punishments related to moral oughts and standards either.
Show me where is this mentioned within the topic of Morality and Ethics.

So you're talking about pure moral or ethical theory, rather than "applied ethics", which law arguably is.

In Morality, moral oughts and standards are merely guides for future improvements.
Do you get this?
Else what is your counter.

The 'lack of activation of mirror neurons related to morality' indicate there is need to improve the activation so that the moral compass/quotient of the individual will be increased.

That's a reductionist fallacy and pure speculation, and since it has no bearing on the philosophy of the law in regards to personal accountability, I don't particularly care.

I'm sure that rapists and murderers would love to us that as a justification or way to claim victimhood, among other things.

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:51 am You don't seem to be able to distinguish between
1. Philosophy of Politics
and
2. Philosophy of Morality & Ethics.

The two things interrelate, obviously.

Yes, in secular law of legislature, 'ignorance is no defense';

But in Morality, there is no question of 'ignorance is no defense'.
There is no elements of enforcement and punishments related to moral oughts and standards either.
Show me where is this mentioned within the topic of Morality and Ethics.

So you're talking about pure moral or ethical theory, rather than "applied ethics", which law arguably is.

In Morality, moral oughts and standards are merely guides for future improvements.
Do you get this?
Else what is your counter.

The 'lack of activation of mirror neurons related to morality' indicate there is need to improve the activation so that the moral compass/quotient of the individual will be increased.

That's a reductionist fallacy and pure speculation, and since it has no bearing on the philosophy of the law in regards to personal accountability, I don't particularly care.

I'm sure that rapists and murderers would love to us that as a justification or way to claim victimhood, among other things.

Nope!
Secular legislature laws relate to Politics and governance only.
Morality and Ethics has nothing to do with Politics.

Morality is Pure.
Ethics is Applied in relation to the Pure, but ethics in this case is still related to the application by the individual's striving towards the moral ideal.
Ethics is where the individual aligns with the Pure and take steps to strive towards the impossible moral ideals which at the same time drive continual improvement within the individual.

Politics merely borrow ideas from Morality and Ethics.
It is just like Technology, Engineering, etc. borrowing ideas and knowledge from Science in their application, but they are independent of each other.

You are just ignorant of the mirror neurons and their contribution to the morality and ethics of the individual and humanity collectively.

The committed evil acts of the rapists and murderers will be dealt by the laws of the land via politics.

The mirror neuron factor when managed effectively will facilitate to reduce the number of rapes and murder in the longer run.
In this case, the individuals are self-regulating and thus there will be less reliance on the laws of the land to deal with rapes and murder.

The ideal of Morality and Ethics is such that the laws of the land and politics need not be invoked at all to deal with evil acts.
Ideal target cannot be achieved fully at all times, but at least on average we strive to get as close as possible to the ideal.

Fortunately for you, you don't need to give a damn about Morality and Ethics at present in your circumstances if you choose not to bother.
What I proposed if initiated now by those who are concern will only achieve critical mass and be fruitful after 50, 75 or > 100 years from now.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:12 am Morality is all about the future. If there is no future - there is no morality.

Behaviour is not "merely what it is". Behaviour is a noun. Behaving is a verb. Change in behaviour is called "learning".

Some collective behaviour will bring extinction upon us sooner.
Some collective behaviour will bring extinction upon us later.

Later extinction is better than sooner extinction.

"Later extinction" is moral.
"Sooner extinction" is immoral.

It's a pathetic standard. Merely to live longer for its own sake with no reference to living better or more morally/justly. Acting justly may lead to a sudden and untimely obliteration of the human race.

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:40 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:52 pm Since morality and human behavior are the same, and behavior is merely what it is, the future of morality is only to be identical to existence and thus to be distinguished from nothing and no longer have a place to play in human imagination or reality.

Morality or moral philosophies are not "identical" to human behavior, rather they are rational systems, principles or axioms, which attempt to distinguish what human behavior is moral or immoral, on the grounds of various axioms or principles.

Therefore, morality is no longer compelling, but means nothing. Its meaning is utterly lost and destroyed.

Your begging the question, since for one you haven't provided any system, philosophy, or definition of morality to begin with.

If we use the Common Law system or philosophy of the US and the UK, and its founding moral axioms, principles, and procedures, for example (as per Supreme Court Justice Holmes), behavior which is considered to be immoral or illegal is based on notions such as "harm" or "damages", along with human notions such as irrationality, rationality, intentions, pre-meditation, and so forth; with law and all of the specific "rules" and so forth having evolved or developed over time, from older moral or legal systems (e.x. Exodus, Rome, etc), taking into account precedents based on previous court cases.

Beyond imposing a bare minimum of morality on people by "force" (e.x. prohibiting rape, murder, child pornography, etc), the law more or less allows a person to be "immoral" or the "have a bad heart" on a private or personal basis, so long as they don't trip over the fine "line" and violate the rulers. So it obviously is not the "be all end all" in moral philosophy, but if anything just a bare minimum of imposition and a step above anarchy, "law of the jungle", blood feuds, private vengeance or vendettas, or greater social ills which would presumably exist on some level in anarchy or more primitives, "3rd world" conditions than presumably exist in "civilized" societies or 1st world countries, and so on and so on.

---

So I'm curious, how do you equate any and all "human behavior" with "morality"? And if so, then what do you equate with "immorality"?

Morality or moral philosophies are not "identical" to human behavior, rather they are rational systems, principles or axioms, which attempt to distinguish what human behavior is moral or immoral, on the grounds of various axioms or principles.

I'm presupposing the radical criticism of all principles implied by the fact value distinction and the denial of the God of Salvation or the teleological possibility of the good way of life. Principles in their high form can be called teachings or doctrines about values. There is no objective test of their merit. One can test them according to whether people behave according to the principles.

Your begging the question, since for one you haven't provided any system, philosophy, or definition of morality to begin with.

I'm presupposing the tradition's understanding as sketched in the first answer. The conversation takes place in the region where reason feels compelled to set aside mere claims inherited institutionally from the tradition as of the teleology of Salvation in all its forms including the constant philosophic attempts to overcome reason's doubts.

Holmes absolutely denied Natural Right. His view was nearly identical to Nietzsche's. The current view in America is that the Positive Law is all that matters (I'm well aware of the work of Epstein et al, and the mere talk of Natural Right and the real derivations from Roman Law). The issue is obscured by the mechanism of the Constitution which is a form of the dead founders and their beliefs--which are held by nobody today (whatever they may claim to believe)--over the living jurists. Scalia (who destroyed permanently the system of precedents/judge made law [the phrase but not the fact long proscribed in American usage] or the Common Law in America with respect to Statutory Law), for instance attempted to set the Constitution aside through the innovations he made to the Statute Law. He failed because of the need for interpretation which attaches to old texts. The Heart Fuller debate is the close authority on how the current attitudes came in in the post-war period which is a halfway-house situation, a sort of revivification without genuine conviction of Natural Law simply because of the disdain and horror inspired by the Nuremberg Defense. The larger picture requires we go back to 1900 or so and study the coming into being of the fact/value distinction in its control of the conception of Science. (I would also recommend as a primer Kelsen's lecture What is Justice, 1952 available on YouTube.)

Beyond imposing a bare minimum of morality on people by "force" (e.x. prohibiting rape, murder, child pornography, etc), the law more or less allows a person to be "immoral" or the "have a bad heart" on a private or personal basis, so long as they don't trip over the fine "line" and violate the rulers. So it obviously is not the "be all end all" in moral philosophy, but if anything just a bare minimum of imposition and a step above anarchy, "law of the jungle", blood feuds, private vengeance or vendettas, or greater social ills which would presumably exist on some level in anarchy or more primitives, "3rd world" conditions than presumably exist in "civilized" societies or 1st world countries, and so on and so on.

The reduction to behavior doesn't mean the sudden disappearance of laws or the respect of laws. It only means they are behaviors. You seem to allude to Hegel's settlement, but forget that Hegel was understood to have failed because he came to the limit of what reason dealing with men as objects and subjects can accomplish. One then goes to religion, but there too fails in the light of the "spirit of revenge" which is the watchword of the failure of the metaphysical release from time implied by the God of Revelation/Salvation and by the Philosophic Good.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:50 pm It's a pathetic standard. Merely to live longer for its own sake with no reference to living better or more morally/justly.

There is no need to dichotomise it. It's the necessary, but not sufficient. Extinct species have no use for notions such as morality, well-being or justice.

Living longer causes better living due to reasons of specialisation/division of labour in any society. You can't have doctors, lawyers, teachers in a society where the median age is 35. It takes 10 years to specialise those skills.

You can't have judges (and therefore no justice) in a society like that either - show me a judge under the age of 35 in ANY country!

It's not a coincidence that the economic wealth of the world (and the well-being of people) correlates with increased life expectancy. All those things go hand-in-hand.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:50 pm Acting justly may lead to a sudden and untimely obliteration of the human race.

If "acting justly" leads to the "sudden and untimely obliteration of the human race", then your conception/definition/application of justice is immoral.

Any such "acts of justice" are dogmatic idiocy and should be summarily outlawed and punished to the full extent possible by the law.

Justice that misses the forrest for the trees is not justice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:25 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:50 pm It's a pathetic standard. Merely to live longer for its own sake with no reference to living better or more morally/justly.

There is no need to dichotomise it. It's the necessary, but not sufficient. Extinct species have no use for notions such as morality, well-being or justice.

Living longer causes better living due to reasons of specialisation/division of labour in any society. You can't have doctors, lawyers, teachers in a society where the median age is 35. It takes 10 years to specialise those skills.

You can't have judges (and therefore no justice) in a society like that either - show me a judge under the age of 35 in ANY country!

It's not a coincidence that the economic wealth of the world (and the well-being of people) correlates with increased life expectancy. All those things go hand-in-hand.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:50 pm Acting justly may lead to a sudden and untimely obliteration of the human race.

If "acting justly" leads to the "sudden and untimely obliteration of the human race", then your conception/definition/application of justice is immoral.

Any such "acts of justice" are dogmatic idiocy and should be summarily outlawed and punished to the full extent possible by the law.

Justice that misses the forrest for the trees is not justice.

Extinct species have no use for notions such as morality, well-being or justice.

this is a peculiar statement, I'm not quite sure what it means.

You can't have doctors, lawyers, teachers in a society where the median age is 35. It takes 10 years to specialise those skills.

This is flatly and absurdly false. Lawyers and doctors have been at the center of society, understood as serving a necessary duty, for three thousand years in the west and have no one formula for their training. They were very important in the societies of scarcity, almost all societies there ever were until the industrial revolutions. However, I grant the general notion of an enrichment of life through prolonged education and construction of the person.

Any such "acts of justice" are dogmatic idiocy and should be summarily outlawed and punished to the full extent possible by the law.

Let's examine something more modest. Say the choice between killing or doing what leads to someone dying or, on the other hand, both persons dying. It may be better for both to die. These may be the final humans and they would go out in justice sure of their having lived well.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm this is a peculiar statement, I'm not quite sure what it means.

It means exactly what it says. Dead philosophers don't need philosophy.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm This is flatly and absurdly false. Lawyers and doctors have been at the center of society, understood as serving a necessary duty, for three thousand years in the west and have no one formula for their training. They were very important in the societies of scarcity, almost all societies there ever were until the industrial revolutions. However, I grant the general notion of an enrichment of life through prolonged education and construction of the person.

Strawman. We are talking morality, right, well-being and justice. Right?

Do you prefer to be treated by a doctor in 2020 AD or a doctor in 1000BC ? Do you prefer to be on trial (and be defended by a lawyer) in 2020 AD or 1000BC?

We are ta

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm Let's examine something more modest. Say the choice between killing or doing what leads to someone dying or, on the other hand, both persons dying. It may be better for both to die. These may be the final humans and they would go out in justice sure of their having lived well.

Your contrived scenario is incoherent. Who would the "last two people" be killing exactly? Are you perhaps suggesting that if the final humans didn't "live well" - then they wouldn't "go out in justice"?

If humanity ever dwindles down to two - we already fucked up. Morally speaking. If our choice of philosophy is what led us to this cliff's edge - philosophy is immoral.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:34 pm

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm this is a peculiar statement, I'm not quite sure what it means.

It means exactly what it says. Dead philosophers don't need philosophy.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm This is flatly and absurdly false. Lawyers and doctors have been at the center of society, understood as serving a necessary duty, for three thousand years in the west and have no one formula for their training. They were very important in the societies of scarcity, almost all societies there ever were until the industrial revolutions. However, I grant the general notion of an enrichment of life through prolonged education and construction of the person.

Strawman. We are talking morality, right, well-being and justice. Right?

Do you prefer to be treated by a doctor in 2020 AD or a doctor in 1000BC ? Do you prefer to be on trial (and be defended by a lawyer) in 2020 AD or 1000BC?

We are ta

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:13 pm Let's examine something more modest. Say the choice between killing or doing what leads to someone dying or, on the other hand, both persons dying. It may be better for both to die. These may be the final humans and they would go out in justice sure of their having lived well.

Your contrived scenario is incoherent. Who would the "last two people" be killing exactly? Are you perhaps suggesting that if the final humans didn't "live well" - then they wouldn't "go out in justice"?

If humanity ever dwindles down to two - we already fucked up. Morally speaking. If our choice of philosophy is what led us to this cliff's edge - philosophy is immoral.

It means exactly what it says. Dead philosophers don't need philosophy.

I don't understand this. You are very ironical and otherworldly. But, so far as I do understand, I regard it as false. It amounts to saying we might as well be dead and therefore nothing matters. Which is false, since we are irritated by life necessarily and so must confront its difficulties.

If humanity ever dwindles down to two - we already fucked up. Morally speaking. If our choice of philosophy is what led us to this cliff's edge - philosophy is immoral.

It would be better to live well, and living well may require dying. However, that is the extreme crude case which sets up or elucidates the more subtle and more daily cases. By the way, forget about philosophy, just talk about the reality. The cases are about the situation of human beings including ourselves.

Do you prefer to be treated by a doctor in 2020 AD or a doctor in 1000BC ? Do you prefer to be on trial (and be defended by a lawyer) in 2020 AD or 1000BC?

Sort of a bizarre notion. You might as well speak of doctors in thirty thousand years. What's the point?

The underlying thing is we do seem to still think along the lines of the metaphor with health. Morality is health in the more general sphere of life. Justice and the like may appear rather delicate in some sense, since they go far beyond mere stopping of the bleeding. Something the ancient physicians did well. And in societies were every adult male would have gone to war they were more necessary than current doctors by far.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:00 pm I don't understand this.

What is it that is confusing you?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:00 pm You are very ironical and otherworldly. But, so far as I do understand, I regard it as false. It amounts to saying we might as well be dead and therefore nothing matters. Which is false, since we are irritated by life necessarily and so must confront its difficulties.

Truth/falsity is just another abstract concept. Like justice and morality. You don't need truth to be alive, but you need to be alive to seek truth. Whatever the hell truth is.

The greatest difficulty/obstacle humanity needs to confront is our own extinction.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:00 pm It would be better to live well, and living well may require dying.

I am trying to picture how you could possibly watch civilisation crumble; billions of humans dying - you being the last person on earth. And as your final thoughts you utter "at least I lived well". If your idea of "living well" entails living through Armageddon - you are a tad misguided.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:00 pm Sort of a bizarre notion. You might as well speak of doctors in thirty thousand years. What's the point?

The point is that the future (2020 AD) is better than the past (1000BC) - that is a moral judgment. This is in direct conflict with the OP title.

And indeed. If it came to curing cancer, I would very much prefer to be treated by a doctor from 30000AD than by a doctor from 2020AD.

To repeat myself: Morality is ALL about the future. Morality is ALL about making sure that the future is better than the past.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:00 pm The underlying thing is we do seem to still think along the lines of the metaphor with health. Morality is health in the more general sphere of life. Justice and the like may appear rather delicate in some sense, since they go far beyond mere stopping of the bleeding. Something the ancient physicians did well. And in societies were every adult male would have gone to war they were more necessary than current doctors by far.

If you want metaphors - I will give you metaphors. Prevention is better than cure, but amputation is better than death.

The future must be better than the past, otherwise we are failing at morality.