A question for everyone

[The happy Objectivist]

Personally, I'm not granting you that one just yet. We may agree in principle that some things are good or bad for us, but does that then rise to the level of being a fact beyond our own subjective opinions? Ehhhhh

Still nothing.

OK. But on my objective understanding of principles, this is how we identify facts. I'll give you my answers later but I want to give others a chance first. It may be that when I give my answers you won't agree with them at all. This is more about an exercise in thinking than it is about getting the right answer.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Without a source for morality there are no moral standards, only peoples opinions.

But there is a source that is not just an opinion. That's what this exercise is all about. Facts are not matters of opinion.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I thought you were asking us to define "oughtness" in terms of some other concept. I gather that's not what you intended to discuss after all.

No, I'm asking what facts give rise to the need for such a concept as morality.

I'm talking about "axiom" in the sense that it's used in formal logic and mathematics. I don't know what the colloquial sense of the word is.

That's why I defined it. A concept that identifies a primary, conceptually irreducible, fundamental fact. for example the axiom of existence. Existence is an axiomatic concept. It includes everything that exists. So it identifies a fundamental fact. Existence can't be defined in terms of more fundamental concepts because there are none. Therefore it is irreducible. You can only define it by pointing to it. It is a primary fact because it is implicit in all knowledge. That's what I mean by an axiom. Mathematical axioms are not fundamental to all knowledge nor are they conceptually irreducible.

The way most people use the concept axiom is in describing some principle that is taken for granted but what most people call an axiom is not a philosophical axiom. It's not a primary. It's not irreducible, it rests on more fundamental concepts.

I feel like we've moved from "Let's discuss philosophy" to "Guess what the answer is" to "Guess what the question is", so I'll bow out for a while. I yield the floor to @Bradskii . Maybe I'll buy the next round.

Actually it's an exercise in a certain method of thinking. It's not a discussion about what is moral but about the issues one would need to know in order to reach the concept of morality. I think people are trying to make this harder than it has to be. I've tried to give hints, not to lead anyone to a conclusion but it's just that people are not understanding the questions. As I said this way of thinking is totally foreign to 99 percent of people so it's understandable that they would have difficulty answering. I'm not down on anybody for not knowing. These are deep issues that most people never consider. I know I didn't at one time. It's OK. This should be fun. It is for me.

 

[Astrid]

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?

Avoid personal extinction.

 

[Astrid]

I think I'd start with our inner intuitions that "morally right" and "morally wrong" are meaningful categories -- that the word "ought" means something. Figuring out which actions are morally right and morally wrong can be a challenge, of course, and ethicists come up with various theories to use as heuristics. But the category itself -- moral rightness/wrongness -- is a deep intuition most humans have. To deny that category is to deny a strong inner intuition, and I don't want to do that without a very good reason.

A lot of animals have innate understanding of what behaviour will
work in the group, and training from the adults refines it.
Those slow to catch on dont make it.

Like retriever dogs being bred...if they dont have the instinct,
out of the gene pool they go.

I had a Samoyed for a while. Zero interest in retrieving.

 

[Astrid]

Monkeys understand fair trade

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It's crucial to human life as in without it we die? Or without it we live but can't be happy?
Something else?

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I don't think it's reasonable to say, for example, that we have a choice to keep our hand in the flames. Or not to struggle for breath if drowning. The instinct for self preservation is the most basic and overriding of all instincts. So to that extent, unless we are suicidal or sacrificing ourselves from some perceived greater good, we have no choice. So that which harms us is bad. That which keeps us from harm is good.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't think it's reasonable to say, for example, that we have a choice to keep our hand in the flames. Or not to struggle for breath if drowning. The instinct for self preservation is the most basic and overriding of all instincts. So to that extent, unless we are suicidal or sacrificing ourselves from some perceived greater good, we have no choice. So that which harms us is bad. That which keeps us from harm is good.

Yeah, we do have a flight or fight reflex. sometimes there's no time to think and your reflex saves you. Isn't that part of the brain called the lizard brain. I think it is. I don't think you could choose to keep your hand in a fire either and I defy anyone not to run when being charged by a Grizzly (speaking from personal experience here). But that's not what I'm talking about when I say we choose to live. Life is an ongoing process that has to be undertaken volitionally. A plant acts automatically to further it's life. It can't choose not to sprout, put down roots, grow leaves to collect sunlight and reproduce. Man doesn' t have automatic actions like that. But the two you pointed out are some of the ones that are like the actions of a plant, automatic and out of your control. But man can't live long term by reflex. There's no reflex that can cause you to make clothes, tools, shelter, etc, or at least no reflex will give you the knowledge needed to make these things. Farming is one of the best examples I can think of. There's no instinct or reflex for farming. You have to learn all sorts of things in order to farm. What do plants need to grow. what are the ideal conditions to produce abundant fruit. What causes a plant to grow in a certain spot. What nutrients are needed. How much water is too little. This requires thinking which has to be done by choice. Your need to think in order to live is baked into your nature as man. that's why Aristotle defined man as the rational animal. He didn't mean that all men act rationally all the time but rather man is the animal that survives by thinking. That's a huge hint regarding the last why question.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah, we do have a flight or fight reflex. sometimes there's no time to think and your reflex saves you. Isn't that part of the brain called the lizard brain. I think it is. I don't think you could choose to keep your hand in a fire either and I defy anyone not to run when being charged by a Grizzly (speaking from personal experience here). But that's not what I'm talking about when I say we choose to live. Life is an ongoing process that has to be undertaken volitionally. A plant acts automatically to further it's life. It can't choose not to sprout, put down roots, grow leaves to collect sunlight and reproduce. Man doesn' t have automatic actions like that. But the two you pointed out are some of the ones that are like the actions of a plant, automatic and out of your control. But man can't live long term by reflex. There's no reflex that can cause you to make clothes, tools, shelter, etc, or at least no reflex will give you the knowledge needed to make these things. Farming is one of the best examples I can think of. There's no instinct or reflex for farming. You have to learn all sorts of things in order to farm. What do plants need to grow. what are the ideal conditions to produce abundant fruit. What causes a plant to grow in a certain spot. What nutrients are needed. How much water is too little. This requires thinking which has to be done by choice. Your need to think in order to live is baked into your nature as man. that's why Aristotle defined man as the rational animal. He didn't mean that all men act rationally all the time but rather man is the animal that survives by thinking. That's a huge hint regarding the last why question.

But that happened gradually. It evolved. Thinking is common to all animals. We just do it better than the rest. It's a matter of degree only.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

That humans live in groups that require cooperation. That is all.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

But that happened gradually. It evolved. Thinking is common to all animals. We just do it better than the rest. It's a matter of degree only.

Yeah, it did. It's still ongoing. I don't know that they think. I mean form concepts. But you're right, we do, and to a vastly greater degree than the other animals if they do at all. I mean dogs and certain other animals can recognize themselves in a mirror and Elephants can find the bones of their dead. Chimpanzees use sticks as tools. But that is not their main mode of survival. They live at the perceptual level of consciousness. When a drought comes and there is no food they parish. They don't invent farming. you couldn't live like a dolphin, Bradskii. Nor could you live like an Eagle or an Earth Worm. Your life has different requirements because of your nature as a rational animal. And I guess I've just given the answer to the last why question. You face the alternative of existence vs. non-existence because it is part of your nature or identity. Identity is the axiomatic concept at the base of Morality.

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".

Thinking in terms of essentials means taking an idea back to axioms. You can do this with any principle except for axioms. They can't be broken down into essentials because they already are essentials.

And in my opinion, everyone should do this for every idea they hold from the simplest to the most abstract. If someone tells you that the way to have a good life is to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it, then you know objectively, by the facts that this isn't so.

 

[Bradskii]

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".

If I'm reading that right then I think that you have that wrong.

Most matters are such that we do know, or can at least envisage, a good or a bad outcome. Good being that which produces a result which is of benefit to us. That which is conducive to living a full and satisfying life (the exact meaning of which may vary from person to person but can be generally agreed, such as food, shelter, freedom from pain or fear, interests etc). And bad being the omission or removal of those things. And even when the outcome is not immediately transparent, it will become apparent at some point.

In that regard, we work towards what is 'good' and reject that which is 'bad'. And I have put quotes around both because things are not good or bad in themselves. We simply use those terms to describe what we do that end up being benefical or detrimental. What works in other words. Whereas a religious view might determine that an act is bad in itself and not act in that way simply because it has been proscribed.

So we act in ways that allow us to survive and flourish. If we didn't then we wouldn't be here talking about it. So we act in ways that work. Those people that act in ways contrary to those that work are often removed from the gene pool (although we are all aware of those who aren't and who buck the system and take advantage of the vast majority who 'play by the rules'). From the guy who doesn't buy his round to the mass murderer. But we have developed checks and balances which often work. From physically removing the serial killer from society to a degree of social ostracising for the tight wad at the bar. We have developed concepts such as guilt and shame and pride and honour which reflect what we have discovered is 'good' or 'bad'.

And it is a summary of that which works which we define as morality. It is simply a definition of that which we have determined to be beneficial in some way. Or at least to not be detrimental.

 

[Tolworth John]

We do have a source. It's the concept of 'do no harm'. But your opinion on what harm actually constitutes might well differ from mine. That's applicable whatever the source.

That is merely your cultural conditioning to the remnants of Christian morality.

 

[Tolworth John]

But there is a source that is not just an opinion. That's what this exercise is all about. Facts are not matters of opinion.

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

 

[Hazelelponi]

But the sin nature of man doesn't make morality necessary in and of itself, evolution does that by making moral behavior a beneficial survival trait.

I disagree. I believe it's the sin nature in man because animals have survival traits yet no other being developed a specific moral code such as we have.

Things like don't eat before the alpha is full is a survival trait... Giving in charity isn't specific to one's survival yet it's in almost all human beings moral code.

 

[Bradskii]

That is merely your cultural conditioning to the remnants of Christian morality.

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

 

[honestal]

Sorry. I'm not buying this argument. I refuse to define someone else's life for them. I don't know what this makes Johnny/Jenny but I'm far more concerned with Johnny/Jenny's character than I am with their sexual categorization. Sexual categorization may be a big thing to you, but it ain't nothing to me.

Johnny's health and well-being, and his ultimate future happiness, is a very big thing to me. (It should be a big thing to anyone that has a heart.)

Allowing Johnny to do something that will most certainly harm his future life instead of improving it is not love and kindness, but absolute foolish cruelty.

As with gravity, there are some things that are truth (and reality), not a matter of personal feelings.

A white man is not a black man, no matter what he thinks and feels.

A man is not a dog, no matter what he thinks and feels.

And a boy is not a girl, no matter what he thinks and feels.

It's an incredibly sad sickness, and should be dealt with as such.

That's true love and care. The opposite is both foolish and cruel.

 

[Bradskii]

Johnny's health and well-being, and his ultimate future happiness, is a very big thing to me. (It should be a big thing to anyone that has a heart.)

Allowing Johnny to do something that will most certainly harm his future life instead of improving it is not love and kindness, but absolute foolish cruelty.

As with gravity, there are some things that are truth (and reality), not a matter of personal feelings.

A white man is not a black man, no matter what he thinks and feels.

A man is not a dog, no matter what he thinks and feels.

And a boy is not a girl, no matter what he thinks and feels.

It's an incredibly sad sickness, and should be dealt with as such.

That's true love and care. The opposite is both foolish and cruel.

Maybe you should concentrate on what we are talking about in general rather than introducing individual hypotheticals which do nothing to advance the conversation. There will always be a 'Little Johnny' story which will counter any position one takes. Pick any position at all on any subject you like and I will give you an example which refutes it. Will that mean that I have countered your position? Of course not.

Exceptions are exactly what it says on the box. Exceptions to the rule.

 

[Robban]

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?

.