Where is the Objective Morality?

[durangodawood]

I don't get the question. I mean, the statement isn't false. Tautologies are all true, they're just useless.

Sot there's a tautology implicit in this statement: "2 arms are a feature of the hominidae family" ?

 

[Moral Orel]

Sot there's a tautology implicit in this statement: "2 arms are a feature of the hominidae family" ?

If you're going to alter the format of the phrasing we're quibbling over, why aren't you doing so to the original statement? This is weird.

But okay, why do we call that a feature of the hominidae family? Because most members of the family have two arms. So, tautology time:

If most members of the homindiae family typically and enduringly have two arms, then its fair to say that having two arms is an objectively demonstrable feature of most members of the hominidae family.​

So what?

 

[durangodawood]

If you're going to alter the format of the phrasing we're quibbling over, why aren't you doing so to the original statement? This is weird.

But okay, why do we call that a feature of the hominidae family? Because most members of the family have two arms. So, tautology time:

If most members of the homindiae family typically and enduringly have two arms, then its fair to say that having two arms is an objectively demonstrable feature of most members of the hominidae family.​

So what?

You are destroying the idea that a species has natural characteristics to make your point.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are destroying the idea that a species has natural characteristics to make your point.

All I've done is explicitly state what you've said you mean. I'm not leaving it open to imply what you say isn't implied. If rephrasing your argument while retaining it's meaning destroys your argument, then you've got some semantic trickery going on there.

 

[durangodawood]

All I've done is explicitly state what you've said you mean. I'm not leaving it open to imply what you say isn't implied. If rephrasing your argument while retaining it's meaning destroys your argument, then you've got some semantic trickery going on there.

Ok. So whats a valid way to express a natural feature of a species? And is different than how a biologist would express it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. So whats a valid way to express a natural feature of a species? And is different than how a biologist would express it?

There's nothing invalid about the phrasing I've provided already.

 

[durangodawood]

There's nothing invalid about the phrasing I've provided already.

Except that theres a useless tautology in it.

My main point is that if a taste for something is common enough, its reasonable to look for a species level natural explanation for it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Except that theres a useless tautology in it.

Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.

My main point is that if a taste for something is common enough, its reasonable to look for a species level natural explanation for it.

Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".

 

[durangodawood]

Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.

Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".

Anything part of the natural physiology or natural instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy). Like "felines are carnivores", "canines are quadrupedal".

 

[Astrid]

Well there's a useless tautology in the way you phrased it too, I just made it easier to spot.

Please explain to me exactly what you mean by "species level natural explanation".

Isnt " useless tautology" like totally one of those redundantly tautological truisms

 

[Moral Orel]

Anything part of the natural physiology or natural instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy). Like "felines are carnivores", "canines are quadrupedal".

What exactly do you mean by "natural"? I think you mean "typical" because I can't see any other reason for using it. What physiology or instinct is "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

 

[durangodawood]

...What physiology or instinct is "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

If youre an "everything is natural" sort of thinker, then natural will mean nothing as it distinguishes nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

If youre an "everything is natural" sort of thinker, then natural will mean nothing.

If you don't tell me what you mean by the words you use, how am I supposed to understand you?

 

[durangodawood]

If you don't tell me what you mean by the words you use, how am I supposed to understand you?

Mirriam Webster:
Essential Meaning of natural
1: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

Like, a guy who lost a leg in a car wreck has an non-natural physiology.

 

[Moral Orel]

Mirriam Webster:
Essential Meaning of natural
1: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

Like, a guy who lost a leg in a car wreck has an non-natural physiology.

Okay, that's fine. But then anything that can be different about a species from birth, without any interference from man, is natural.

So fitting with your definition, a human born with only one leg has a natural physiology.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, that's fine. But then anything that can be different about a species from birth, without any interference from man, is natural.

So fitting with your definition, a human born with only one leg has a natural physiology.

It sounds like you think nothing should be considered a species level trait so long as there are exceptions by birth defect or other natural cause, no matter how few. Is that right?

 

[Moral Orel]

It sounds like you think nothing should be considered a species level trait so long as there are exceptions by birth defect or other natural cause, no matter how few. Is that right?

I'm fine with calling things a "species level trait" even if there are exceptions if that's a part of your definition.

Anything part of the typical physiology or typical instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy) that isn't caused by human intervention. Like "felines are typically carnivores", "canines are typically quadrupedal".​

Is there any real difference between the meaning of the definition you provided and my adjusted definition? It seems different though, doesn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm fine with calling things a "species level trait" even if there are exceptions if that's a part of your definition.

Anything part of the typical physiology or typical instinct of a species (or broader taxonomy) that isn't caused by human intervention. Like "felines are typically carnivores", "canines are typically quadrupedal".​

Is there any real difference between the meaning of the definition you provided and my adjusted definition? It seems different though, doesn't it?

The difference is in the extent to which members of a species are defined by a common genome, or whether the similarities among individuals are just accidents of statistics.

But this line of discussion might not even be serving my main point, which is that humans, like all animals, are not born a behavioral blank-slate upon which individual strictly subjective preference gets written onto. They are in fact born with a whole raft of preferences and values written into the genome. These are matter of objective, observable fact (as opposed to the experience of having preferences, which is by definition subjective).

For sure human individuals have the capacity to do some editing of that busy slate, tho. And so we do develop a lot of individual preferences as well.

So back to ice cream: if we see a very broad appreciation for ice cream, its valid to ask if some of that comes from (objective) human biology which has evolved to seek out high calorie nourishment.

 

[Moral Orel]

They are in fact born with a whole raft of preferences and values written into the genome. These are matter of objective, observable fact (as opposed to the experience of having preferences, which is by definition subjective).

No, that's not right. We don't prefer or value something until we've experienced it. It's the experience itself that we prefer or value.

So back to ice cream: if we see a very broad appreciation for ice cream, its valid to ask if some of that comes from (objective) human biology which has evolved to seek out high calorie nourishment.

And what can we do with that information if it's true? Can we make a moral fact out of it?

 

[durangodawood]

No, that's not right. We don't prefer or value something until we've experienced it. It's the experience itself that we prefer or value.

That cant be right as it excludes every thing we value for rational rather than experiential reasons.

And what can we do with that information if it's true? Can we make a moral fact out of it?

Do you think its true?