Philosophy Now Forum

At present most people believe the approach to Morality is about doing what one ought to do in accordance to some moral standards or moral values as dictated from some external sources, groups, etc.

Morality-proper is self-driven like Self-Motivation, Self-Motivation in accordance to an inherent moral potential of universal moral standards which can be verified and justified as a moral fact.

Note the analogy?

• Self motivation is the ability to drive oneself to take initiative and action to pursue goals and complete tasks. It’s an inner drive to take action — to create and to achieve.
  It’s what pushes you to keep going on tasks, especially those you’re pursuing because you want to, not because someone told you to.
  https://soulsalt.com/self-motivation/#

I believe what make people self-motivated is based on an inherent self-motivated potential embedded in the DNA of all humans. This is an objective human feature.

At present the the moral potential in all humans is not very active in the majority of people.

To be able to be self-driven in moral competence naturally one must develop the inherent moral potential within the brain, mind and body to a certain effective level. To do so and achieve reasonable progress it will take time, perhaps only within the next few generations.

As such, we cannot expect much progress with moral competence with the present generations. But in order to ensure future generations develop a reasonable self-driven moral competency we have to start the basic right now by recognizing the existence of the inherent moral potential within all humans.

Unfortunately moral fact deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. are dogmatically resistant and insist on the status quo thus hindering any expeditious moral progress within humanity at present and in the future.

It's fun that he has nobody left to do these call out threads at except Pete.

When Kant was deciding whether morality was a matter of obeying imperatives, applying principles or achieving desired outcomes etc he was sort of addressing a key question about the status of a moral proposition such as "stealing is naughty". Riffling through the self help shelf of your 2nd hand bookshop for a treatise on motivation doesn't really fill in the same gaps and completely fails as a substitute.

Morality is a social construct, though its essence is found in our common biology the foundation of which is identifying oneself with the self in others, only then does compassion for others arise. The general idea of our common humanity took a while to develop, and as much as I have a distaste for Christianity it has been fundamental in that development. Humanity/morality to be rational should I be founded on our common biology which gives rise anyway in a distracted way, to all the mongrel species religions. One cannot live in society and not embrace its morality without experiencing a very difficult life. As Nietzsche stated, morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive. Truth to the individual is experience, to the group/society it is agreement, and agreement to be civilized carries the day.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 10:55 am It's fun that he has nobody left to do these call out threads at except Pete.

When Kant was deciding whether morality was a matter of obeying imperatives, applying principles or achieving desired outcomes etc he was sort of addressing a key question about the status of a moral proposition such as "stealing is naughty". Riffling through the self help shelf of your 2nd hand bookshop for a treatise on motivation doesn't really fill in the same gaps and completely fails as a substitute.

The odd thing I found in the OP, an OP which I am nto particularly against, is that moral potential is like motivation which is also a potential. But if self-motivation is like the morality potential, how can you possibly develop it, since you need self-motivation to decide and carry out training your self-motivation. At least that's how he talks about our moral potential. That we develop it ourselves. Via disclipline. But if self-motivation is just a potential like moral potential, then it isn't already in motion. He can sort this out, but it reads very strange.

And I wish he would explain on what grounds we don't decide to develop the aggressive portions of our brain also.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:19 am Morality is a social construct, though its essence is found in our common biology the foundation of which is identifying oneself with the self in others, only then does compassion for others arise. The general idea of our common humanity took a while to develop, and as much as I have a distaste for Christianity it has been fundamental in that development. Humanity/morality to be rational should I be founded on our common biology which gives rise anyway in a distracted way, to all the mongrel species religions. One cannot live in society and not embrace its morality without experiencing a very difficult life. As Nietzsche stated, morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive. Truth to the individual is experience, to the group/society it is agreement, and agreement to be civilized carries the day.

As I had indicated above,

It’s what pushes you to keep going on tasks, especially those you’re pursuing because you want to, not because someone told you to.

Autonomy is a critical necessity for morality.
When one has a state of high moral competence, it must be based on full freedom [autonomy] to act spontaneously and "not because someone told you to" or is threatened with penalties legally or the divine threat of hellfire.

The general idea of our common humanity took a while to develop, and as much as I have a distaste for Christianity it has been fundamental in that development.

The inherent moral potential has been unfolding very gradually but not fast enough to cope the earlier necessary unfoldment of the evil potential.
This is why there are the stop-gap measures from Christianity (& others, not Islam) and the instituting of legal threats to prevent more evil acts while the moral potential is unfolding gradually.

One point is it is already too late for the current majority to realize their moral potential to greater heights, thus we will have to bear with the current state of evils.

It will take time for the brain to be rewired for the better and this will only be realized in later generations [next 50, 100, 150 years or more??].
As such we have to start with the right approach now to ensure future generations are more morally competent.

But as expected there will always be resistance to any progress which need to be overcome, in this case of moral progress, from people like Peter Holmes et. al.

it's universal if everyone chooses to adopt it

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 12:10 pm it's universal if everyone chooses to adopt it

-Imp

Which is impossible.

Viritus,

Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive, morality is something you practice, often indoctrinated into from birth. No one living in society can be utterly autonomous. There is that is call the social contract, you keep the morality and the laws in order to reap the benefits of being a member of a given society. Someone insisting on utter autonomy would in all likelyhood be a crimminal to the individual's society. Autonomy too is like pregnancy there is no such thing as being a little pregnant/autonomous.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:09 am Viritus,
Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive, morality is something you practice, often indoctrinated into from birth. No one living in society can be utterly autonomous. There is that is call the social contract, you keep the morality and the laws in order to reap the benefits of being a member of a given society. Someone insisting on utter autonomy would in all likelyhood be a crimminal to the individual's society. Autonomy too is like pregnancy there is no such thing as being a little pregnant/autonomous.

Viritus?? try sticking to rational discussion rather than veering off to name calling. Where will it end if I counter with a tit-for-tat.

I don't agree with absolute freewill but rather there is definitely relative freewill, note reality is relative and conditional.
Even a prisoner who is locked up tightly has relative freewill to shit whenever she wants.

Morality is independent of laws [politics], theology, social customs and tradition albeit they overlap to some degrees.
Note my point re
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34867&start=45

Morality is related to the inherent moral potential which is to be acted naturally, spontaneously with freedom, i.e. without any compulsion from laws [politics], theology, social customs and traditions.

Laws are necessary to deter those with say criminal tendencies, [murder, rape, violence, etc.] but there are many people who do not have such criminal tendencies and that is because their moral potentials are more active than those with lesser moral controls.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:33 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 10:55 am It's fun that he has nobody left to do these call out threads at except Pete.

When Kant was deciding whether morality was a matter of obeying imperatives, applying principles or achieving desired outcomes etc he was sort of addressing a key question about the status of a moral proposition such as "stealing is naughty". Riffling through the self help shelf of your 2nd hand bookshop for a treatise on motivation doesn't really fill in the same gaps and completely fails as a substitute.

The odd thing I found in the OP, an OP which I am nto particularly against, is that moral potential is like motivation which is also a potential. But if self-motivation is like the morality potential, how can you possibly develop it, since you need self-motivation to decide and carry out training your self-motivation. At least that's how he talks about our moral potential. That we develop it ourselves. Via disclipline. But if self-motivation is just a potential like moral potential, then it isn't already in motion. He can sort this out, but it reads very strange.

And I wish he would explain on what grounds we don't decide to develop the aggressive portions of our brain also.

He doesn't like it when you mention nasty words like 'circular'. But his foundations of morality do rather assume a moral filtering has already occured. The foundational principles that determine what is moral are selected ahead of time by "DNA" and just so happen to have been selected for moral reasons.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:28 am He doesn't like it when you mention nasty words like 'circular'. But his foundations of morality do rather assume a moral filtering has already occured. The foundational principles that determine what is moral are selected ahead of time by "DNA" and just so happen to have been selected for moral reasons.

Right, and if we assume that is correct. That what is in the brain, the potentials that could drive our behavior, are moral, how do we decide which ones to develop. I mean, I'm with him. I wish there was some more empathy out there. But HE is choosing to focus on mirror neurons, rather than the hypothalomus regions leading to aggression. He has no posts about developing that. Or bemoaning how dumb we are not knowing recent science about that region of the brain. And how IT also has a moral potential, just, perhaps a different moral potential than the mirror neurons. But the Spartans, the Jivaro, those running many corporations, many politicians, do see that part of the brain (without knowing about it, most of them) as moral. Strength, courage, self-assertion, getting things under control and in order (for me and what I value).

But he doesn't mention other brain potentials since they don't match his morality (or better put, what he thinks his morality is). I mention this last because he precisely lacks here cognitive empathy, since he cannot, at least in English, manage to feel his way into any objections to his program, so any objections come from stupidity or immorality. And he seems to lack emotional empathy as well since he has no concern about this....

precisely like people who have not developed the potential of the mirror neurons.

So, we have this overrideing dominating, dismissive presence, creating thread after thread judging anyone who disagree and not just when they get snarky first, telling us to develop our mirror neurons just like a teenager still wrestling with his first surges of testosterone who thinks he knows how all his elders fucked up and could run things better if he was in charge.

I didn't start out snarky with him and met him elsewhere in other forums. But he was so utterly dismissive and judgmental and never, at least in words on the screen, took seriously any objection, that I got snarky.

He might as well be the East India Company or missionaries amongst Native Americans or any other program pusher who is intimately in contact with the ideas in their heads and not much with the 'barbarians' they want to control and tell what is good and right

One other pattern that I have noticed is that he does integrate what people say, without acknowledging it. His posts will soon after a scientific of philosohical objection that can be googled, show information and potentially better arguments to fend off such objections. Without ever admitting, hey good point, let me mull. Using the very resistance he thinks is stupid, outdated and immoral.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 10:04 am One other pattern that I have noticed is that he does integrate what people say, without acknowledging it. His posts will soon after a scientific of philosohical objection that can be googled, show information and potentially better arguments to fend off such objections. Without ever admitting, hey good point, let me mull. Using the very resistance he thinks is stupid, outdated and immoral.

In his earlier works here, he used to have just frameworks and systems but he had to make them FSKs, that thread looks like it was before Pete beat him up over the subject of kowledge as JTB so perhaps that was why he reformulated to FSK things, but it might have been because I was having fun forcing him to create facts about unicorns and other dumb shit.

He's done other reformulation where I have been entirely in the dark as to what they are in response to. One I really never got was when he became absolutely obsessed withe telling us that the moral facts were clues not imperatives. Was that somehting that happened on one of these other forums? Obviously he will never tell.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 6:52 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 4:09 am Viritus,
Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive, morality is something you practice, often indoctrinated into from birth. No one living in society can be utterly autonomous. There is that is call the social contract, you keep the morality and the laws in order to reap the benefits of being a member of a given society. Someone insisting on utter autonomy would in all likelyhood be a crimminal to the individual's society. Autonomy too is like pregnancy there is no such thing as being a little pregnant/autonomous.

Viritus?? try sticking to rational discussion rather than veering off to name calling. Where will it end if I counter with a tit-for-tat.

I don't agree with absolute freewill but rather there is definitely relative freewill, note reality is relative and conditional.
Even a prisoner who is locked up tightly has relative freewill to shit whenever she wants.

Morality is independent of laws [politics], theology, social customs and tradition albeit they overlap to some degrees.
Note my point re
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34867&start=45

Morality is related to the inherent moral potential which is to be acted naturally, spontaneously with freedom, i.e. without any compulsion from laws [politics], theology, social customs and traditions.

Laws are necessary to deter those with say criminal tendencies, [murder, rape, violence, etc.] but there are many people who do not have such criminal tendencies and that is because their moral potentials are more active than those with lesser moral controls.

A typing error, get a grip!