Establishing Secular Morality

[o_mlly]

I have to say that 'a man has a moral right to be diurnal' is the weirdest concept of morality I have come across.

? Then why did you bring that idea to the thread?

Having an open mind, just as I had made the case that human beings are inherently social, I replied that you would need to make a logical case that human beings are inherently diurnal. If you did so successfully then the descriptive fact that man is naturally diurnal would translate into the prescriptive ought. If you cannot make that case then your idea has no merit as a moral prescriptive.

Let me show you again how to establish a moral right. You scoffed at the idea men have a moral right and obligation to seek knowledge. Is it a fact that man has an inherent need or desire for knowledge? I answer, yes.

Men by nature desire to know; or, in other words, human beings, innately endowed with cognitive powers, have a natural tendency to seek knowledge. Knowledge is a real good that all human beings need. Therefore, man ought to seek to be knowledgeable.

 

[Larniavc]

Therefore, man ought to seek to be knowledgeable.

I don't think it is ought more than want.

 

[stevevw]

I have never done anything like that. Actions are to be determined whatever 'culture' one considers them to be from. This is not a discussion about culture. You really are making things up now. Please don't

No I am honestly not making things up but following your logic about morality. Let me ask you, Do you believe that female circumcision is morally wrong objectively. Not just wrong within your own cultures borders but wrong anywhere in the world by any culture.

This is a monstrously grotesque comparison. No sane person could possibly consider that a medical procedure requested by a woman with full agreement between her, her support team and medical experts, carried out in a safe and sterile environment can possibly be compared to a young girl being forcibly held down while her genitals are cut away by whatever reasonably sharp instrument is available.

Talk some sense, man. Or this conversation is over.

OK I will approach this from a different angle. Do you think there are people from other cultures or even from western culture that believe practicing hormone therapy and genital surgery on minors is wrong.

Each side believes the other is causing harm. Each side believes that their care methods will provide the best care. Who is right if there is no moral truth iunder relative morality.

It doesn't have to be about Trans. It can be able family planning, abortion, marriage, relationships. The point I am making is that there are two sides to many issues. If there is no such thing as objective morality then how can we tell who is right.

If morality is subjective, and about feelings and preferences how can anyone be objectively right to claim the other wrong as feelings and preferences cannot be measured objectively.

Usually people claim like Harris that we can tell through science what is harming wellbeing. But we have to determine what is harm or not. There are many examples where people disagree and both claim the science and facts. How can we ever hope to determine the truth when we can't even agree on what is science or fact or not.

Then there is the fundemental problem of using the measure of morality as human wellbeing is an unscientific assumption. How can we prove that its a fact that wellbeing is the measure without assuming wellbeing is the measure.

I think your actually making a case for belief being true knowledge without substanciating this. It may be possible but I think we have to have more than an unsupported assumption.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think it is ought more than want.

Ok. But the two are not mutually exclusive. In the rational person, both the "ought" and the "want" are present. The first and major premise of the argument —a categorical prescription that is self-evidently true, is the injunction that we ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us.

 

[Larniavc]

we ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us.

Yeah but it's clearly the case that this is not always so. People are not always rational actors (something economists often forget).

 

[Larniavc]

Do you believe that female circumcision is morally wrong objectively.

I believe it is wrong but someone else might not so we can't say it is objectively wrong. It's wrong subjective to my opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah but it's clearly the case that this is not always so. People are not always rational actors (something economists often forget).

In the rational person ...

... it is always so.

 

[Larniavc]

... it is always so.

But people (as in all of the people) are not rational. We can and do make rational decisions sometime bus mostly we don't. An aspect of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is all about teaching people how to think rationally; because we are not wired that way.

 

[o_mlly]

But people (as in all of the people) are not rational. We can and do make rational decisions sometime bus mostly we don't. An aspect of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is all about teaching people how to think rationally; because we are not wired that way.

A normal person is "wired" to be rational; we are cognitive beings and inherently free to choose.

Draw a distinction between a "bad" decision and an "irrational" decision. The illegal drug addict makes a "bad" decision when he chooses to pump poison into himself. However, drug addict acts rationally choosing what he desires believing the object of his desire is good. We always act rationally when we choose what we desire.

In the addict's case the goodness is attributed to the object only because it is desired, while in the case of acquiring knowledge the object ought to be desired only because it is good.

 

[Bradskii]

? Then why did you bring that idea to the thread?

To illustrate the nonsensical idea that if man is a social animal then it is a moral position. We are also diurnal so I was pointing out that that fact is obviously not connected with morality in any way, shape or form. But astonishingly you claim it is. So having incisors and being omnivore is a moral position? Being sexually dimorphic is a moral position? Again, I'm at a loss as to how to argue against something that is so plainly absurd it's not even wrong.

Let me show you again how to establish a moral right. You scoffed at the idea men have a moral right and obligation to seek knowledge. Is it a fact that man has an inherent need or desire for knowledge? I answer, yes.

I did no such thing. I said that you wouldn't include 'knowledgeable' as a characteristic of Homo sapien as you would diurnal, bipedal etc. You could certainly include 'intelligent'. But they are two entirely different things. You could also inlcude 'curious' at a stretch. And combine that with intelligence and you'll have an animal that you describe below.

Men by nature desire to know; or, in other words, human beings, innately endowed with cognitive powers, have a natural tendency to seek knowledge. Knowledge is a real good that all human beings need. Therefore, man ought to seek to be knowledgeable.

So seeking knowledge is a moral good because we have a natural tendency to seek it? Do you really want to go there with that argument?

 

[Bradskii]

Usually people claim like Harris that we can tell through science what is harming wellbeing. But we have to determine what is harm or not. There are many examples where people disagree and both claim the science and facts.

That's true. And I indicated that that will always be a problem. I want to make the case that the concept is viable. Not that it means we will always have the answer. But it surely can't be beyond anyone to accept that some things are harmful whatever claims to the contrary might be made. Whatever appeals to culture might be presented. And some not.

But generalities will not normally be sufficient to determine harm. Is sex outside marriage harmful? Well I can give you one example where it wouldn't be by any stretch of anyone's imagination and one where it would invariably lead to harm.

So rather than point out where differences of opinion may exist - a point which has already been accepted, then why not concentrate on the concept itself.

 

[Larniavc]

A normal person is "wired" to be rational; we are cognitive beings and inherently free to choose.

Simply untrue.

Do you know of system one and system two thinking?

Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students - PMC

Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

System 1 thinking is a near-instantaneous process; it happens automatically, intuitively, and with little effort. It's driven by instinct and our experiences. System 2 thinking is slower and requires more effort. It is conscious and logical.

People have have to be taught system 2 thinking.

So you are very clearly wrong on this point.

 

[Bradskii]

Simply untrue.

Do you know of system one and system two thinking?

Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students - PMC

Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

System 1 thinking is a near-instantaneous process; it happens automatically, intuitively, and with little effort. It's driven by instinct and our experiences. System 2 thinking is slower and requires more effort. It is conscious and logical.

People have have to be taught system 2 thinking.

So you are very clearly wrong on this point.

Backed up by Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast And Slow. Highly recommended (pasting the Amazon link won't work for some reason, sorry). If my cut and paste behaves itself later I might paste something relevant from the book.

 

[stevevw]

I believe it is wrong but someone else might not so we can't say it is objectively wrong. It's wrong subjective to my opinion.

Yes and the same logic applies to culture and relative morality. It is wrong according to my culture but another culture may think it is wrong so we can't show its absolutely wrong independent of those cultures.

But that is the problem with subjective and relative morality. Our hands are tied as far as declaring even abhorent behaviour as wrong independently. So we have to concede that even Hitler was right according to their culture and believed they were doing nothing wrong.

Luckily we don't actually live morality that way and we did find that the Nazi were wrong in a world court.

 

[stevevw]

That's true. And I indicated that that will always be a problem. I want to make the case that the concept is viable. Not that it means we will always have the answer. But it surely can't be beyond anyone to accept that some things are harmful whatever claims to the contrary might be made. Whatever appeals to culture might be presented. And some not.

But generalities will not normally be sufficient to determine harm. Is sex outside marriage harmful? Well I can give you one example where it wouldn't be by any stretch of anyone's imagination and one where it would invariably lead to harm.

So rather than point out where differences of opinion may exist - a point which has already been accepted, then why not concentrate on the concept itself.

Or concentrate on the agreements about what is right and wrong and think about why that is the case. I think we will find there is a lot we can agree on rather than what we disagree. I agree we can know that some things are just wrong. They defy our intuitions about avoiding and minimizing the suffering of others. We would not want that for ourself or our kids.

The idea that there can be a better way to behave compared to other ways to behave. It makes sense that there are better ways to behave which implies that we don't have to just accept our current behaviour. It implies there is a moral truth that we can take a step towards even though it may not be the ultimate truth at the time due to lack of understanding.

Though we may not be able to prove this scientifically we do have a number of ways we can determine we are heading in the right direction. Part of that is the science, part of that is our intuition and experience. If we are moral and rational beings then perhaps the knowledge of right and wrong is instinctual to us.

Afterall we seem to know when we are wrong as we often react like its wrong. We have a wealth of lived experience where we have tested morality. Like going through wars, the chaos of disorder and the psychological damage it does to humans and society. We don't want that to happen to us or anyone.

So I think a case can be made in a number of ways and its when these align that its more likel;y we are heading in the right direction. But using science, rationalisation, intuition, belief or our experience alone can distort things. I think its when all these aspect converge and support each other that we can be justified in our belief that something is morally wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Or concentrate on the agreements about what is right and wrong and think about why that is the case.

I've done that. We can agree that something is wrong if it causes harm. Where's the mystery in that?

Do you want to try approaching this from the other direction? Can you agree that something cannot possibly be wrong if it causes no harm at all? Something tells me that you'll quibble about that but let's hear it anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes and the same logic applies to culture and relative morality. It is wrong according to my culture but another culture may think it is wrong so we can't show its absolutely wrong independent of those cultures.

But that is the problem with subjective and relative morality. Our hands are tied as far as declaring even abhorent behaviour as wrong independently. So we have to concede that even Hitler was right according to their culture and believed they were doing nothing wrong.

Luckily we don't actually live morality that way and we did find that the Nazi were wrong in a world court.

I disagree with you and I partly disagree with @Larnievc. The first priority is: Has harm been caused? That's the first cab off the rank because if it can be determined that no harm has indeed been caused, then there's literally nothing regarding morality to be discussed. It doesn't even get off the ground.

If harm has been caused then we can debate whether the reasons for it are justified or not. Which is where, as I have pointed out, the problems arise. In some cases it's easy and all of us will be in agreement. So cutting of an arm to save a life because the arm is terribly injured and it's a matter of the arm or his life then we can all agree that it is indeed justified. But if the arm is removed because it's traditional in this particular culture to do so to the first born etc etc, then no. It's not justified.

So if you kill a person then he was obviously harmed. So let's have the debate about the morality of the situation.

Was he or would he be a danger to you or others? No.
Was it punishment for something? No.
Did he want you to kill him? No.
Was it an accident? No

Well, we're starting to run out of justifications for this. So why was he killed? Because he was...Jewish. Ah, fair enough. Then that's an immoral act. Plain and simple.

Want a harder one? Well, swap the Jewish guy for a Japanese one and debate whether dropping the bomb was justified. Pretty hard to do. But it's all based on harm.

 

[o_mlly]

But people (as in all of the people) are not rational. We can and do make rational decisions sometime bus mostly we don't.

Nope.

Simply untrue.

Do you know of system one and system two thinking?

That's it? This is your evidence supporting your claim that, "people (as in all of the people) are not rational"?

128 medical students as a sample are hardly representative of "all the people".
44% of the 128 got all three trick questions correct. Hardly "all".
The 3 questions are the age-old trick math questions that lead one to "rationally" jump to an erroneous answer. (I recall having them in high school. ("A frog in the bottom of a 50 foot well jumps up 3 feet in the day and falls back 2 at night ...")
Which evidences only that one can be rational and wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

To illustrate the nonsensical idea that if man is a social animal then it is a moral position. We are also diurnal so I was pointing out that that fact is obviously not connected with morality in any way, shape or form.

Good. Since diurnal was your idea, feel free to dismiss it as a moral issue.

So seeking knowledge is a moral good because we have a natural tendency to seek it? Do you really want to go there with that argument?

Man by nature desires to know; or, in other words, human beings, innately endowed with cognitive powers, have a natural tendency to seek knowledge. Knowledge is a real good that all human beings need. Humans have a moral right and obligation to seek knowledge.

Feigning indignity at one's argument is not a counterargument.

 

[Bradskii]

Good. Since diurnal was your idea, feel free to dismiss it as a moral issue.

Consider it dismissed.

Man by nature desires to know; or, in other words, human beings, innately endowed with cognitive powers, have a natural tendency to seek knowledge. Knowledge is a real good that all human beings need. Humans have a moral right and obligation to seek knowledge.

So if we have a natural tendency towards something then it is a moral right? Well, that can't be right for all sorts of obvious reasons. So maybe if something is a real good then it is morally correct.

Hey, been there. Got the T shirt. As I said in post number 2:

'Generally speaking, what's good is what works. If sharing food in a group situation helps the group to survive, then sharing is, by definition, good. Evolution will remove from the gene pool that which is bad - i.e. that which doesn't help the propagation of the group (or species). In that sense, evolution determines that which we term 'good'. It might then happen that as societies develop we term that which is good to be moral.'

It's good to see that you recognise that.