Moral Ontology

[Elioenai26]

How is morality grounded?

What is the most plausible explanation for the existence of morality?

This thread is going to be geared towards moral ontology not epistemology. Here we are not concerned about how we come to know what right and wrong is, but rather, what is its grounding or what is its explanation for its existence.

 

[Asvin]

You are claiming that morality has to be "grounded." Justify your claim. Why can't morality be subjective?

 

[quatona]

How is morality grounded?

It is grounded in our likes and dislikes.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are claiming that morality has to be "grounded." Justify your claim. Why can't morality be subjective?

I am claiming that our concept of morality has an explanation for its existence.

My question is, what is this explanation?

Do you understand the question?

 

[Elioenai26]

It is grounded in our likes and dislikes.

And what is the explanation for our likes and dislikes? How are they accounted for? Where do we get the idea that people who are generous and loving and selfless are likeable, and people who are selfish, stingy, and hateful are dislikeable?

 

[quatona]

And what is the explanation for our likes and dislikes?

I´m not sure I understand what sort of explanation you are looking for. Are you asking why e.g. we don´t like pain?

Where do we get the idea that people who are generous and loving and selfless are likeable, and people who are selfish, stingy, and hateful are dislikeable?

In this wording it sounds like a post-hoc rationalization of something pretty simple. We like interacting with people who are contributing (or whom we expect to contribute) to our well-being, and we dislike interacting with people who are causing us suffering (or whom we expect to cause us suffering). Does that really need an explanation?

I like chocolate because it tastes good to me.

Why would such simple (almost to the point of being tautological) facts need to be accounted for?

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m not sure I understand what sort of explanation you are looking for. Are you asking why e.g. we don´t like pain?

I have mentioned nothing about pain.

In this wording it sounds like a post-hoc rationalization of something pretty simple. We like interacting with people who are contributing (or whom we expect to contribute) to our well-being, and we dislike interacting with people who are causing us suffering (or whom we expect to cause us suffering). Does that really need an explanation?

Yes it needs an explanation. It seems to me you are implying that morality is based on what we determine to be conducive or not conducive to our well-being. Is this your position?

If so, how did homo sapiens come to acquire this sense of what is conducive to well-being and what is not?

 

[Davian]

How is morality grounded?

What is the most plausible explanation for the existence of morality?

This thread is going to be geared towards moral ontology not epistemology. Here we are not concerned about how we come to know what right and wrong is, but rather, what is its grounding or what is its explanation for its existence.

You have already told us. It is this "God" of yours.

amirite?

 

[Elioenai26]

You have already told us. It is this "God" of yours.

amirite?

I want non-theistic views, including ignostic views, if you have one, regarding the foundations of morality.

 

[Davian]

I want non-theistic views, including ignostic views, if you have one, regarding the foundations of morality.

I did that on page 17 of this thread, and you did not respond to it.

You also have not responded to my posts here, and here.

As for the OP, I would propose that you yourself present the naturalistic/evolutionary explanation for morals, as you understand them. I am not asking that you accept them, just that you do your homework instead of this schtick of having others post their claims and you scratch away at them.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable. Falsify it.

 

[quatona]

I have mentioned nothing about pain.

But I did, and I explained how I think it´s relevant in this context.

Yes it needs an explanation. It seems to me you are implying that morality is based on what we determine to be conducive or not conducive to our well-being. Is this your position?

I said it better myself.

If so, how did homo sapiens come to acquire this sense of what is conducive to well-being and what is not?

It´s not so different from anything else in nature. A certain amount of water is conducive to the well-being of plants, hunger and pain aren´t conducive to the well-being of animals. That´s just the way things are.

 

[Elioenai26]

It´s not so different from anything else in nature. A certain amount of water is conducive to the well-being of plants,

Water is a requirement for plants to grow.

hunger and pain aren´t conducive to the well-being of animals. That´s just the way things are.

I agree, when we have hunger pains that means we need to eat something.

What you have failed to explain is how morality, which is normative, can be accounted for by nature. For in nature, it is not said that plants ought to share water with their neighboring plants, or that a pack of wild dogs ought to share the meat in a dead carcass with their fellow wild dogs.

You have also failed to elaborate on why and how moral values like love, mercy, and justice just exist. For if this is the case, the we can assume that hate, injustice, and greed just exist. If these things just exist, then it remains to be seen how they can have any influence on us or lay any claim on how we should behave. Or maybe when you say thats just the way things are, you are saying that as homo sapiens, we have this concept of what is conducive to our well-being ingrained within us as a by-product or a result of socio-biological pressures from the evolutionary process? If not then what you are espousing is that moral values like love, mercy, and justice, as well as greed, hate etc. etc. just exist out there somewhere external to us which is moral platonism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This thread is going to be geared towards moral ontology not epistemology. Here we are not concerned about how we come to know what right and wrong is, but rather, what is its grounding or what is its explanation for its existence.

Very briefly, I'm an ethical naturalist who sees human values as grounded in the requirements of human life. Simply put, it is the natural function of a rational living being that sets the proper standard of evaluation for values as either good for one, and therefore worthy of choice, or bad for one, and to be avoided if possible. The good is what contributes to the fulfullment of one's well-being (or flourishing) as a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Very briefly, I'm an ethical naturalist who sees human values as grounded in the requirements of human life. Simply put, it is the natural function of a rational living being that sets the proper standard of evaluation for values as either good for one, and therefore worthy of choice, or bad for one, and to be avoided if possible. The good is what contributes to the fulfullment of one's well-being (or flourishing) as a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This seems to be the same view that Sam Harris takes. In this view, that which is morally good is deemed as that which contributes to a conscious creature's well-being, and that which is considered to be morally wrong or evil is that which does not contribute to a conscious creature's well-being.

Is this your view?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This seems to be the same view that Sam Harris takes. In this view, that which is morally good is deemed as that which contributes to a conscious creature's well-being, and that which is considered to be morally wrong or evil is that which does not contribute to a conscious creature's well-being.

Is this your view?

Roughly, but Sam Harris and I might not agree on just what "well-being" entails. While I do think that the functioning of the human psyche is important to human well-being, Sam Harris goes in what to me seems like an odd Buddhist direction with his views.

So, while there might be similarities between his views and mine at some abstract level, I'm not someone who takes Sam Harris's position, or is even influenced by him in metaethics. I haven't read any of his books, and am only vaguely familiar with his arguments. I'm much more influenced by philosophers such as Douglas Rasmussen, David Norton, and Ayn Rand.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Roughly, but Sam Harris and I might not agree on just what "well-being" entails. While I do think that the functioning of the human psyche is important to human well-being, Sam Harris goes in what to me seems like an odd Buddhist direction with his views.

So, while there might be similarities between his views and mine at some abstract level, I'm not someone who takes Sam Harris's position, or is even influenced by him in metaethics. I haven't read any of his books, and am only vaguely familiar with his arguments. I'm much more influenced by philosophers such as Douglas Rasmussen, David Norton, and Ayn Rand.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I see. So differences in what one considers to be conducive to well being aside, you would say that our concept of morality and what is good and evil revolves ultimately around what is conducive to human flourishing (well-being), and what is not conducive to human flourishing (well-being). The good and right being that which is conducive and the evil and wrong being what is not conducive.

Does that sum it up?

 

[quatona]

Water is a requirement for plants to grow.

And well-being is a need for us.

I agree, when we have hunger pains that means we need to eat something.

Therefore we attach a positive value to someone who supplies us with food, and we attach a negative value to someone who takes away our food.

What you have failed to explain is how morality, which is normative, can be accounted for by nature.

So the step from "pain/suffering is immediately experienced as negative" to "we prefer people who don´t cause pain/suffering" is mysterious to you?

For in nature, it is not said that plants ought to share water with their neighboring plants, or that a pack of wild dogs ought to share the meat in a dead carcass with their fellow wild dogs.

Plants and animals have a different level of consciousness than us and quite apparently are lacking the ablility to make abstractions that we have. That´s why plants and animals don´t do mathematics, that´s why they don´t rationalize their needs into "oughts".

You have also failed to elaborate on why and how moral values like love, mercy, and justice just exist.

You are forgetting too soon. We had this conversation just a few days ago in another of your threads and I told you that I see no reason to assume that values just exist. I put a lot of effort in explaining this to you - I am not going to repeat myself here.

Or maybe when you say thats just the way things are, you are saying that as homo sapiens, we have this concept of what is conducive to our well-being ingrained within us as a by-product or a result of socio-biological pressures from the evolutionary process?

For to notice what is conductive to your well-being you don´t need to be a homo sapiens. For to transform this into abstract concepts like "values" you do need to be a homo sapiens (because - for all I know - other species aren´t capable of this).

If not then what you are espousing is that moral values like love, mercy, and justice, as well as greed, hate etc. etc. just exist out there somewhere external to us which is moral platonism.

My observations suggests that we create our values. Since we share a lot of basic needs (and besides that have our individual needs) I am not at all surprised to see that many or even most humans arrive at some similar values while disagreeing on others.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How is morality grounded?

Reality provides a ground for what is. What is, is, whether anyone knows of it or believes in it.

Nothing provides an equivalent ground for what ought. What ought, only has meaning to subjects. Reality does not care.

What is the most plausible explanation for the existence of morality?

Morality is an idea. It comes out of our heads.

 

[dlamberth]

It is grounded in our likes and dislikes.

For some, its grounded in Heart.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Very briefly, I'm an ethical naturalist who sees human values as grounded in the requirements of human life. Simply put, it is the natural function of a rational living being that sets the proper standard of evaluation for values as either good for one, and therefore worthy of choice, or bad for one, and to be avoided if possible. The good is what contributes to the fulfullment of one's well-being (or flourishing) as a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree with that. But is that "morality"?

.