Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

Call it what you like. We had exchange a series of posts. If you are going to respond to my post, respond to what I wrote and support. I am not part of a team. I am not here to back any one specific poster or to oppose them. I may even agree with you on occasion.

As our exchange has gone along, have I not been responding to what you say?

This simply isn't true. I responded to a post about a scientific paper. That post was made in response to a post by you, but..;

I discussed the paper, not you or your ideas.
I discussed the science, not morality (the overarching theme of this thread and sub-forum.)

If (as you say below) the paper was not relevant, you had no need to reply to me or talk about my post. You did both. When I did reply to your first response, I did reply to your post not directly to me, but a very similar post from you that had included your indirect discussion of my post.

This is where the wires got crossed, because the paper was only tangentially relevant and the strength of its arguments aren't strictly relevant to the overall point being made with the reference to it. So my response to your comments on that paper were about the thread of the conversation that led to me introducing that paper.

I'm not going to play this game. I've watched this thread for weeks and the seen your repeated attempts to drag @Bradskii through the mud over "murder" and "rape". (The latter the likely source of your rape/evolution comment, but I didn't dig into it.)

Wasn't me. @Bradskii tried to get me to bite on hypotheticals while I primarily focused on the is-ought problem and the arbitrary nature of his understanding of morality. I did see another poster engaging over 'murder" and "rape" but that wasn't me. I understand why you wouldn't want to play the game, though. Since you're in a pickle, either universal morality exists in some cases and the holocaust is categorically immoral or universal morality does not exist and you can't condemn the holocaust.

Your choice *should* be to not reply. The opportunity was right in front of you at the beginning 24 hours ago.

What's the fun in that?

We can discuss the relationship between evolution and morality (as we have) or not. It is up to you.

The questions that evolution can answer aren't very interesting to me when it comes to morality.

It's not really about how "theory" is used but a very important specific concept of "theory of mind" that is central to the psychological understanding of moral interactions, empathy, and social interactions. Frankly it is hard to have a properly informed discussion on the origin of morality if you don't know about it.

I understand that now, but as I was unfamiliar with the lingo I understood it as a scientific theory of mind rather than a more vernacular usage

Which is exactly why I feel that way about objective and absolute morality.

What good is morality if it's not objective in some sense?

 

[Fervent]

But both you and Hume have missed the very point that @Hans Blaster, @Bradskii, and I have been trying to explain to you. That's that our sense of morality isn't simply reasoned to from nothing. It's born out of that innate sense of justice and mercy to which Micah alludes in the OT, and Paul describes in 2 Corinthians as not being written with ink, or chiseled in stone, but rather written on the hearts of men.

I didn't miss the point, I just don't find it compelling nor very interesting. You don't seem to understand what is truly at issue, because you think that being able to explain the social-emotional elements gives you an explanation of morality. But it doesn't, because there is nothing to ground morals in when disagreements come up.

However @Hans Blaster is correct that while our implementation of morality begins there, it unfortunately doesn't end there. For it's then up to people to apply that innate sense of right and wrong to the everyday world, and that's where that still small voice can lose out to the misguided reasoning to which we as humans are all too easily swayed.

It doesn't even begin there, you've just got a gloss that explains mechanics and no real means of evaluating what it is that makes something moral.

Yes, morals can change from culture to culture, and time to time, but so long as they keep to the goal of doing justly and loving mercy then they're in keeping with the will of whomever it is to which Micah was alluding when he said to walk humbly with thy God.

Sure, but even "justice" requires some way to reason from is to ought. Otherwise we're just slinging mud where my emotions are in combat with yours.

The important thing to remember however, is that people don't reason to morality from nothing, they just sometimes reason away from it.

All this is doing is taking the "beg the question" option as a legitimate route to morality by assuming that our moral feelings are moral truth, and invoking the naturalistic fallacy that because they came about naturally(through evolution) they must be correct


It's not me not understanding, it's you 3 not grasping the problem. you're likely caught in the dogmatism paradox elaborated by Kripke, so caught up in your own behinds that you can't understand the counter arguments.

 

[Bradskii]

And in passing...


I'm some way through 'One second After' by Willim R. Forstchen. It's about how a small town in the US copes when the US is hit with a few nuclear electro magnetic pulse attacks. Almost all modern electrics are out. No power, no comms, no lighting...no nothing.

Long story short, society collapses almost immediately and the usual norms go straight out the window. The death toll is already in 7 figures. Now they need different rules and different moral outlooks to survive. Some things that were acceptable yesterday are no longer acceptable today. What was definitely considered wrong then is now considered right. Even our 'hero', an ex Army colonel, takes part in the execution of two guys who had dealt/stolen some drugs. He knows that what was acceptable punishment before the event is no longer sufficient. Even if martial law has been declared locally.

And it crossed my mind that some people in this forum would say that his actions were wrong. That you can't just summarily execute someone you believe is dealing in drugs. There are moral norms to be upheld! There is due process! There is...justice! It's morally wrong and that never changes whatever situation you find yourself in.

Yet in that regard we're there already.

So there's a conundrum for some. Do you support Trump killing people on the high seas with zero evidence, with zero immediate threat, with zero due process - in which case the usual moral considerations have changed due to circumstances? Or do you maintain that morality is objective, can never change and Trump is wrong?

Just thought we might look at a practical problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As our exchange has gone along, have I not been responding to what you say?

You have asked me to defend the positions of other posters. Don't care. Ain't them.

This is where the wires got crossed, because the paper was only tangentially relevant and the strength of its arguments aren't strictly relevant to the overall point being made with the reference to it. So my response to your comments on that paper were about the thread of the conversation that led to me introducing that paper.

Then you can let it go.

Wasn't me. @Bradskii tried to get me to bite on hypotheticals while I primarily focused on the is-ought problem and the arbitrary nature of his understanding of morality. I did see another poster engaging over 'murder" and "rape" but that wasn't me.

If you say so.

I understand why you wouldn't want to play the game, though. Since you're in a pickle, either universal morality exists in some cases and the holocaust is categorically immoral or universal morality does not exist and you can't condemn the holocaust.

The non-existence of universal morality is no impediment to condemning things. It hasn't stopped you or me.

What's the fun in that?

I'll keep that in mind when you don't want to "play".

The questions that evolution can answer aren't very interesting to me when it comes to morality.

This will be very limiting.

I understand that now, but as I was unfamiliar with the lingo I understood it as a scientific theory of mind rather than a more vernacular usage

Not a vernacular usage, but the term they use to describe a person's model of the mental state of others. I posted a link.

What good is morality if it's not objective in some sense?

what sense?

 

[Fervent]

The non-existence of universal morality is no impediment to condemning things. It hasn't stopped you or me.

I believer in universal morality, so there is no conflict for me. But you claim there is no such thing, so how can you condemn anything and remain consistent with your claims?

I'll keep that in mind when you don't want to "play".

uh huh.

This will be very limiting.

So it will be.

Not a vernacular usage, but the term they use to describe a person's model of the mental state of others. I posted a link.

Vernacular usage of "theory" is closer to how theory is used in that term than the scientific usage, even if it is a technical term in psychology. Though there's really not much use in discussing this further, as i am now aware of the term and have made clear my prior ignorance.

what sense?

The sense where if you believe that something that is wrong is not wrong, or something that is right is not right, you are mistaken in your belief and not just holding a personal preference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believer in universal morality, so there is no conflict for me. But you claim there is no such thing, so how can you condemn anything and remain consistent with your claims?

The same way all of us always have.

uh huh.

So it will be.

Vernacular usage of "theory" is closer to how theory is used in that term than the scientific usage, even if it is a technical term in psychology. Though there's really not much use in discussing this further, as i am now aware of the term and have made clear my prior ignorance.

Awareness is good, understanding how "theory of mind" works in decision making and moral formation is better.

The sense where if you believe that something that is wrong is not wrong, or something that is right is not right, you are mistaken in your belief and not just holding a personal preference.

Once we realize that there is no such dilemma we can move on to actually dealing with moral reality.