A question for everyone

[GDL]

Now let's go back up that ladder. Man has identity, he is a specific type of being with a specific nature. His life requires a specific course of action. Any other course of action will lead to his death. Man has to choose his actions and he has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him and bad for him, therefore he needs a set of values to guide his actions and choices, which choices and actions determine if he lives or dies. These are the facts that give rise to the need for a concept such as "morality".

Now that this has progressed beyond the guessing, and while not being certain I fully understand or agree with some of your thinking, the one question that came to mind when you first mentioned it, and remains given your conclusions, has to do with why is mans' existence or identity an axiom that cannot be reduced? Again, maybe I'm not understanding you, but is not existence and identity something that has always been worked on by reasoning minds? In Greek philosophy, for example, the logos comes to mind, or I think therefore I am. IOW, if we're looking for something to be irreducible, where does morality truly begin?

If this is not where you're working, I'll understand.

 

[Rachel20]

Pain, suffering

I agree with pain/suffering being the basic thing I can perceive with my senses alone that give rise to my need for words/concepts like "moral" and "immoral". I can feel pain in myself, and I can see/hear it in others.

It isn't just physical pain. Even the troubling of the conscience, or the fear of death, can be described as "pain". And it isn't just human or animal pain. We can commit moral crimes that seem victimless in this realm, yet grieve God. And grief is "pain".

 

[Leaf473]

That's it. You nailed it. Life is conditional. We face the alternative of existence vs. non-existence like all living things. If we didn't face that choice, and for us it's a choice, then nothing could harm us or be bad for us. The need for a code of values arises from this fact. Now there's one more reduction to get to an axiom. Why is man's life conditional? I don't mean who made it that way but I mean what fact gives rise to the need for this concept of the conditionality of life. The next answer is a brute fact.

While it is somewhat pleasing to be a person who "nailed it", I think I probably don't agree with what you're saying.

But first, another question:
What is the difference between a fact and a brute fact?

 

[Chriliman]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

I think it’s the fact that our actions towards others either results in positive or negative reactions and we tend to prefer the positive over the negative.

I think morality is about balancing our relations with others with the reality of the world we live in, together.

People use pain/suffering as a clear need for morality, but sometimes pain/suffering leads to growth that would otherwise not occur without pain/suffering. So, I think it’s more about the intended purpose of the pain/suffering.

 

[partinobodycular]

It may be that when I give my answers you won't agree with them at all.

And you were correct...I don't.

But I try to be open minded, so I'm willing to give you a chance to connect the dots. How does a sense of mortality lead to a sense of morality? Because it seems to me that children develop a sense of morality long before they grasp the fact of their own mortality. If anything it's pain and suffering, both physical and emotional, that they're trying to avoid, and it's only us adults who then extend that idea to include the concept of death as being something to avoid. For a child the motivation is far more immediate.

To me it's more like social conformity, and the consequences of a lack thereof that lead to morality. But I could be wrong. Still, I would think that the tendency toward conformity is likely an inherited trait, with society then defining the behaviors by which that conformity is measured. Thus morality is partly inherited and partly learned.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I'm asking what facts give rise to the need for such a concept as morality.....There is a four-word reason why this is....

The genome must propagate.

 

[Tolworth John]

I'm surprised that you consider that we should not harm each other to be specifically a Christian concept.

No I am merely recognising that there are no moral ought in atheism.
You are choosing to follow a Christian concept because it suites you to do so.

Can you show me where in atheists philosophy it say westbound treat others well?

The most you can say is that it is a learnt response for communal living.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The most you can say is that it is a learnt response for communal living.

Isn't that good enough?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Isn't that good enough?

It has to be; it's all there is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I am merely recognising that there are no moral ought in atheism.

Are you sure there are "moral ought"s?

They mostly just seem like things most people would like to be true and followed.

You are choosing to follow a Christian concept because it suites you to do so.

Since you were referring to "do no harm", how is that a Christian concept as it pre-dates Christianity existing in virtually every moral or legal code recorded.

 

[Bradskii]

No I am merely recognising that there are no moral ought in atheism.
You are choosing to follow a Christian concept because it suites you to do so.

Can you show me where in atheists philosophy it say westbound treat others well?

The most you can say is that it is a learnt response for communal living.

And now, far from considering it to be a specifically Christian concept, you explicitly state it. I'm sure that you know that, relatively speaking, Christianity is a new religion considering the length of time that we could consider civilisation to have existed (Mayans, Greeks, Egyptions etc). Do you think no-one ever considered that an 'aught' is applicable in many situations? And that laws are based on that very concept?

And I don't necessarily consider that I should treat others well. I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek type of guy. But...I'm a big believer in the golden rule. And variations of it. So treat me well and you shall be treated well in return. It's the basis of the social contract that most of us abide by. It's the glue that allows society to form. So in that sense, treat me well and I ought to treat you the same. It's conditional.

You don't need divine fiat to be able to understand that, to accept it or to live your life based on it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The genome must propagate.

Is this self evident?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

And you were correct...I don't.

But I try to be open minded, so I'm willing to give you a chance to connect the dots. How does a sense of mortality lead to a sense of morality? Because it seems to me that children develop a sense of morality long before they grasp the fact of their own mortality. If anything it's pain and suffering, both physical and emotional, that they're trying to avoid, and it's only us adults who then extend that idea to include the concept of death as being something to avoid. For a child the motivation is far more immediate.

To me it's more like social conformity, and the consequences of a lack thereof that lead to morality. But I could be wrong. Still, I would think that the tendency toward conformity is likely an inherited trait, with society then defining the behaviors by which that conformity is measured. Thus morality is partly inherited and partly learned.

Which do you disagree with?

Man has identity. He is a being of a specific nature with specific attributes. Do you disagree with this?

Man's life is conditional. It depends on certain actions and conditions if it is to continue. Do you disagree with this?

Some things affect man's life negatively and some positively, or some things and actions are good for us and some are bad. Do you disagree with this?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think it’s the fact that our actions towards others either results in positive or negative reactions and we tend to prefer the positive over the negative.

I think morality is about balancing our relations with others with the reality of the world we live in, together.

People use pain/suffering as a clear need for morality, but sometimes pain/suffering leads to growth that would otherwise not occur without pain/suffering. So, I think it’s more about the intended purpose of the pain/suffering.

I agree with you that some things are bad for us and some good. I hold this is so because our existence as living organisms is conditional. I hold that our existence is conditional because we are beings of a specific nature with specific requirements for life. I hold that this is so because, like all things that exist, we have identity. Identity and existence are the same thing. To exist is to be something and to be something is to exist. We've reached rock bottom. We can't reduce the idea of morality any further than an axiom.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

While it is somewhat pleasing to be a person who "nailed it", I think I probably don't agree with what you're saying.

But first, another question:
What is the difference between a fact and a brute fact?

A brute fact is a primary. The fact that existence exists is a primary. The fact that we are conscious is a primary. The fact that things are themselves and not something other than themselves is a primary. I don't use the term Brute in relation to facts but some people do. I included it for clarity of what I'm talking about.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Now that this has progressed beyond the guessing, and while not being certain I fully understand or agree with some of your thinking, the one question that came to mind when you first mentioned it, and remains given your conclusions, has to do with why is mans' existence or identity an axiom that cannot be reduced? Again, maybe I'm not understanding you, but is not existence and identity something that has always been worked on by reasoning minds? In Greek philosophy, for example, the logos comes to mind, or I think therefore I am. IOW, if we're looking for something to be irreducible, where does morality truly begin?

If this is not where you're working, I'll understand.

Man's existence is not but the fact that existence exists is. Identity is an axiom because of the 100% concurrence of existence and identity. To exist is to be something and something specific. Think of identity as the attributes of a thing. And to be something is to exist as opposed to being nothing. We can't drill down any further because the concept "existence" is the most fundamental concept. It denotes everything that exists. Any valid concept identifies something that exists.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

And the fact of that source is so obivous that you cannot state what it is.

I can answer it now and it is completely obvious. It's inescapable. The source is existence as such.

 

[Leaf473]

A brute fact is a primary. The fact that existence exists is a primary. The fact that we are conscious is a primary. The fact that things are themselves and not something other than themselves is a primary. I don't use the term Brute in relation to facts but some people do. I included it for clarity of what I'm talking about.

What is the difference between a fact and a primary fact?

################
Edit: So far, I'm unable to see what you're saying as an uncommon way of thinking.

Maybe I lack the capability to grasp what you're saying.
Or maybe what you're saying is "ungraspable", irrational.
Or maybe it's the way most people think and you're using different words for it.

Have a good one, my man!

 

[klutedavid]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

I can think of two 'facts of reality' as you call them. That I see as absolutely a moral choice.

The first fact, alcoholism. When I left home, I lived in some boarding houses and they were populated to some extent by alcoholics. Having observed the suffering and medical problems, that alcoholics experience. I vowed, I would never drink alcohol. That was a moral choice and a health choice.

The second observable fact, drug addiction. Unfortunately, I knew a number of heroin addicts and ice addicts. I also knew addicts that were addicted to certain prescription drugs. The suffering and medical problems were prolific. I am terrified of addictive drugs. I never want to experience the suffering, the withdrawals, the broken families, the ruined lives. Once again, moral choices.

No one want's to experience these two facts.

 

[durangodawood]

Is this self evident?

It's evident. Isn't that enough?