Its hard to explain. Its a combination of different things. Its certainly not just a flippant blind guess thrown at the wind. Theres some deeper insight, you don't allude to judgements from a flippant guess. Some say its the result of an underlying process of analysis through experience that happens at lightening speed. Put it this way as mentioned philosophers will choose a proposition that meets intuitions as evdience over one that doesn't. So theres something to it.
Ok...but babies lack experience. You seem to be claiming this is something they are literally born with.
Well its follows. A crime is committed and justice must be done. We all agree with that. Rule of law. But the lynch mob want to bypass rule of law the very basis of justice. Thats not justice. Its Jacks or whoevers law.
Ok....I'll just be frank and say I don't think you even believe this. You brought up the Nuremberg trials earlier...and that's an unusual example where a group of people who followed the rule of law were punished for it. You seemed to think that was justice in the example. I don't know how you are connecting "rule of law" and justice. Clearly, it seems that you think these things are not always connected and it can be justice to break the rule of law.
But that doesn't mean it conforms to the principle of justice. It may be motivated by revenge or selfish motives which pervert the course of justice.
You haven't given any principle of justice, it's an abstraction. When you made it more specific by referring to rule of law, I at least had a vague idea of what you meant....but now it's not clear how you are relating the rule of law to justice.
Then they have got it wrong.
How would you know?
Luckily we have an independent measure called Rule of law. Or even Human Rights. NO person shall be arbitrarily detained and punished.
I don't know what this "independent measure" is then. Laws vary from place to place and across time...just as morals do.
Like I said we have established the principle of Justice through our long history of living out injustices.
I don't think we have.
Just like if you burn yourself on the hot plate enough times you know what will happen. So avoid the hot plate. Put in measures to avoid the hot plate.
There's no hot plate to burn you though...so this fails as an analogy. It doesn't matter how a group defines justice...it appears they at least genuinely believe in their versions of it. They don't seem to regret justice that we may find abhorrent.
Yes I guess you could call it that. But I think qualified emotions and not just any arbitrary emotion.
What is a qualified emotion?
Do you mean you stop and think while the person is being attacked or just ignore two people people fighting over a bag like its just everyday behaviour.
I would need more context to guess how I would behave.
Isn't saying it depends on the situation implying that there is some measure as to whether something is wrong or not.
It's definitely saying that circumstances dictate how I will react to any situation.
No but I would still think its wrong. I would not think because its a small thing that its ok to take it from another.
You'd agree that you might see it as unjust or immoral but not act because it's not significant enough to merit a reaction?
But it has to because we find ourselves in these situations where we blame people and they were inncocent.
Your intuition sounds a lot like bias.
Then when we find out the facts we realize we got it wrong. But this doesn't mean that the sense or trigger that made us thing something was wrong is not useful.
It doesn't seem to be useful in regards to knowing truth. It seems like it could impede one's ability to perceive truth.
It gets it right most of the time.
Again, how do you know?
This may be a consequence of having this sense and though it is a first indicator of something wrong our reasoning can help sort this out. But none of this would make any sense if we diedn't first have some sense and knowledge about morality.
Remember way back when I said it sounds like a post hoc rationalization to a stimulus induced emotional reaction?
This is the post hoc rationalization part.
They are somehow connected to others and sense their suffering.
People tend to communicate suffering in nonverbal cues. Perhaps that is the stimuli you are reacting to.
So either this sense is just a fluke and happens to align with what adults call good and bad or theres some detector despite reasoning.
The ability to read nonverbal cues is to some degree cultural and in other degrees....biological. Autistic people, for example, can have difficulty reading nonverbal cues.
Well that was the findings. Babies to some extent but especially infants who can then be actively engaged spontaneously and strongly sided with the good guy and not the bad guy. In fact supported the good guy in dishing out punishment to the bad guy. No different to other behavioural studies and deriving conclusions from the behaviour after factoring things out. This has been independently repeated. As the researchers said what we see with this behaviour is what adults woulde call being naughty and nice.
Ok...cite the research then. I don't ask that and then ignore it, I actually read the research if you'll cite it.
Pretty calculated guesses.
Whether or not you think the guesses are accurate or not...there's no way to confirm them. They're just guesses.
They can confirm babies behaviour with infant behaviour that brings the same responses out in a more interactive way.
I don't think they can.
Then this same behaviour is tracked all the way through to adults gradually showing more sophisticated behaviour of the same. Its a pretty in depeth and thriving field now.
I guess you aren't aware of the recent scandals of behaviourists faking data to get published. Apparently, this has been going on in the field for some time. I'm not talking about small names either...but highly respected "experts" on behavior.
I can understand that it's difficult to take the time, money, and effort to do research...only to find the results don't confirm a theory....but that's not an excuse to create fake data.
Then you can add other findings from other fields like sociology and anthropology even biology which can confirm this. Like how anthropologists can find all cultures share the same moral sense in their cultural behaviour.
There's not much in anthropology I respect these days. They seem far to willing to interpret whatever they want in ways that are fashionable for political narratives.
But this was also a finding that despite the culture, even if atheists kids still display intuitive theism and have a moral sense.
I hope you aren't referring to the science fiction writer whose blog you linked earlier. He may blog on a website called "science 2.0" or whatever but it didn't seem overly scientific at all.
All cultures share a core set of morals regardless of their different ways of expressing this. So it may be that kindness is a core moral we all have but cultures express this their own way. The core moral doesn't change but the expression fo it does. In some ways you have to make (socialise) an atheist and immoral person rather than a moral and theistic one.
Ok...so when you say that "kindness" is a culturally universal moral....and I say "what about the Mongol horde of Ghenghis Khan?" it may be true that they were acting out of kindness by murdering everyone who refused to obey them because they believed that by conquering the world they would bring it peace forever...but that's the problem with an abstraction.
Kindness is simply too abstract to be useful in a discussion of moral values. The nazis may have seen themselves as doing a great deal of kindness to the whole world by exterminating the jews...but I do disagree, along with many others.
Saying that we all share the same moral values of justice and kindness tells us nothing if we cannot agree on what is just or kind. As I said before....we all think it's good to do good. That's not a moral framework that explains anything.
So why do we make jsugements about the persons behaviour like they are wrong, like there is a right and wrong.
So we can know when we are with our tribe, group, people, or any sort of social relationship we can have with others....and when we are in a different tribe, group, people, or social relationship.
Imagine you were dropped into a place that you have never been and find yourself sitting next to a guy who can speak your language. He begins describing his morals and you immediately realize that the things he says are good....you think are awful, terrible, and bad....furthermore, he describes these morals as universal, everyone around you agrees.
I think we can safely say that...
1. You aren't in your society, social group, or culture....certainly not the one you were born into.
2. If you disagree them strongly and often...you had best leave and try to find your way back to your group.
3. To avoid any trouble while amongst these people....you have been given an idea of how you are expected to behave.
See how useful that is?
If it was feelings there would be no right and wrong.
I don't see that would be the situation.
Like math, not a physical thing itself but an abstract yet factual in the world.
Well math has proofs...it's a means of expressing logic. It's not purely abstract. You don't seem to have a means of proving any moral judgement as true. You also don't seem to have any evidence that we share any moral judgements that can describe actual behavior and instead....you seem to be relying upon extremely vague abstractions that can be applied to nearly any behaviour.
Considering philosophers are the experts at ethics I rather trust them knowing like mechanics would know about cars more than a non mechanic.
I don't think they're the experts of anything lol. I had once read a survey on philosophers that showed 60% or so believed in an objective reality....and the other 40% or so believed we existed in a simulation of some sorts. I'm not certain why some philosophers are widely regarded and others considered minor or even completely insignificant but I think it has more to do with novelty than anything.
Regardless...they don't agree on morals or ethics.
Yes so when they see infants behave in the same way adults do
If an adult is crawling around on the floor wearing a diaper and making baby noises I tend to give them a wide berth as I avoid them.
in say stopping the bad guy from taking the sweat for the puppet or helping the good guy help the puppet achieve its goal or make judgements about which behaviour is good and bad and even punish the bad guy we can like we do our own behaviour conclude this is moral like behaviour. As they said infants behaviour was what adults call being good and bad. This has been repeated with the same findings which amounts to good science.
Again, give me the research and I'll gladly give it a look.
The same moral sense is found in toddlers. Its more easily seen because now they can enage and give the victime justice by taaking the sweat from the bad guy who took it and giving it back ect. Babies are tracked with eye movements and show the same sense with fixed attention on the behaviour they finde more interesting. This is then translated to the engaged behaviour which matches.
I'm sorry....did you say they interpreted eye movements to indicate moral judgements?
Things have come along way in behavioural sciences. But like I said its not just the behaviour studies. This is linked with other areas which all converge on the same findings.
You'll have to forgive me then...it's the first I've heard of it. Fortunately, with that much agreement across such a wide range of disciplines, it will be easy for you to post a few examples of the research that you're describing.
The book is mainly based on the tests. I think they called it the baby lab at some uni. But this is only one. They set up tests with toys, puppets, objects ect as characters and play out moral situations to see their reactions factoring out other possibilities as much as possible. Like mothers influence with blind tests.
Again, I'll gladly look at the research. I take it you couldn't think of a moral behaviour that you can engage in while in complete isolation?
That was the thought experiment I had asked you about that you seem to have avoided answering.
