Determining what is “moral”

Originally posted by vistesd
I frankly just don’t worry about it much anymore. In my past history, it seems to me as if my spontaneous responses have been generally more helpful—and less harmful—to people (including myself) than any of my premeditated, reasoned attempts to be “moral”.

But the overall intention remains being 'more helpful and less harmful to others'.

We do this because we evolved to do this - because it benefits the society. We encourage others to do this because that too benefits the society. Of course there are the cheaters who give more preference to selfishness, but when there are too many of those society falls apart.

Morality isn't a universal law, it is a result of game theory.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the overall intention remains being 'more helpful and less harmful to others'.

We do this because we evolved to do this - because it benefits the society. We encourage others to do this because that too benefits the society. Of course there are the cheaters who give more preference to selfishness, but when there are too many of those society falls apart.

Morality isn't a universal law, it is a result of game theory.

That may be. It is just that I am not bound to any particular prescriptive moral theory. I no longer say something like, “This must be right”, even though it feels wrong—for any reason. I do not advertise that attitude as a valid ethical paradigm, or moral theory. Nor do I advocate that as a principle.

I have no argument to make here at all. I conform to neither “divine command theory” nor Kantian deontology here—I don’t know what I conform to. One could say that I no longer think in terms of the moral category, perhaps. Or that I follow my “aesthetic sense”—or my intuition—under the circumstances.

Let’s put it this way: I would choose to fight against slavery (assuming I have the courage) no matter what moral arguments, if any, could be advanced in it s favor. I am not saying why; I am only saying that I know myself well enough to say that. If an adult human being tries to torture my cat-friend, I will use whatever force is necessary (even if lethal) to stop them—I don’t attempt to construct a moral justification for that, it is simply what I know that I will do. Etc ., etc.

I do not attempt to justify any of that. I have given up that game.

Originally posted by vistesd
I do not attempt to justify any of that. I have given up that game.

But what you do, and what you would describe as a 'moral action' are not necessarily the same. If you act for purely selfish reasons, you would not normally describe that as morally motivated. Also, your choice to save the cat over a fellow human being, may or may not be morally motivated. You may describe it as 'love' rather than 'moral'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what you do, and what you would describe as a 'moral action' are not necessarily the same. If you act for purely selfish reasons, you would not normally describe that as morally motivated. Also, your choice to save the cat over a fellow human being, may or may not be morally motivated. You may describe it as 'love' rather than 'moral'.

No argument.

Originally posted by vistesd
I frankly just don’t worry about it much anymore. In my past history, it seems to me as if my spontaneous responses have been generally more helpful—and less harmful—to people (including myself) than any of my premeditated, reasoned attempts to be “moral”.

I make decisions that may or may not be accurate (or erroneous), and that others may or may not ...[text shortened]... desire not to harm anyone, I don't have one. Maybe its ethical intuitionism, I don't know.

I also see morality as pure noise because this product takes place solely in a non egoless state; of course a person well balanced on the wu wei/ wei wu wei state needs no noise in order to behave (by the way methinks our friend bbar is now free to spot the traces of virtue he was looking for)
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the overall intention remains being 'more helpful and less harmful to others'.

We do this because we evolved to do this - because it benefits the society. We encourage others to do this because that too benefits the society. Of course there are the cheaters who give more preference to selfishness, but when there are too many of those society falls apart.

Morality isn't a universal law, it is a result of game theory.

I would rather say that morality isn't a universal law but a product of ours designed to encourage each one of us to benefit our society😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

Welcome back Mr Hamilton😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I would rather say that morality isn't a universal law but a product of ours designed to encourage each one of us to benefit our society😵

Which is a result of evolution and game theory.

I must also mention other motivations that result from the same:
1. A preference for those closely related to you. This effect shows itself at all levels from the family unit, to patriotism, to racism.
2. The emotion of love, which tends to help cement friendships and family units.
3. The concept of punishment for wrongs done.

None of these can be explained as rational universal laws, yet we hold them so dear that we usually speak of them as if it is assumed that they are universal laws.

This of course puts theists in a difficult position when trying to explain why God (who apparently did not evolve in a society) should have any of the above motivations. It also puts them in a difficult position in no 3. when the punishment is given after death and without direct feedback to a society - as it no longer serves any purpose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is a result of evolution and game theory.

I must also mention other motivations that result from the same:
1. A preference for those closely related to you. This effect shows itself at all levels from the family unit, to patriotism, to racism.
2. The emotion of love, which tends to help cement friendships and family units.
3. The concept of pu ...[text shortened]... given after death and without direct feedback to a society - as it no longer serves any purpose.

We agree😵

Originally posted by black beetle
We agree😵

Which leads us to asking Andrew Hamilton whether he would consider love "baseless and totally arbitrary".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is a result of evolution and game theory.

I must also mention other motivations that result from the same:
1. A preference for those closely related to you. This effect shows itself at all levels from the family unit, to patriotism, to racism.
2. The emotion of love, which tends to help cement friendships and family units.
3. The concept of pu ...[text shortened]... given after death and without direct feedback to a society - as it no longer serves any purpose.

I don't see this as simple as you are making it out to be with evolution and game
theory.

With evolution we have go from where we have none to something that is in its
current state or current level of existence today. So what you’re doing is talking
about values fully developed with cause and justifying them. Where would values
come from that puts those closely related to one as important than those that
were not? This is a serious question, why value those closer to you, if before no
one or nothing ever did that before?

With emotions it goes way beyond a simple standard of values now we have
entered into love and hate, which if nothing ever loved or hated before why would
that just show up out of no where?

Justice that requires punishment is a huge step in values and morals since it means
now that values have been firmly in place and wrongs were clearly understood so
that actions are required.

Now we seem to live in a world where disagreement is the norm for all of us who
have values. Why would one's values be more important than anothers, why would
we allow one group of people's rules to be applied over all of those that disagree
with them. Even in our so called "highly developed" world it doesn't seem to work,
so why would it ever start to begin with than continue until today?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is a result of evolution and game theory.

I must also mention other motivations that result from the same:
1. A preference for those closely related to you. This effect shows itself at all levels from the family unit, to patriotism, to racism.
2. The emotion of love, which tends to help cement friendships and family units.
3. The concept of pu ...[text shortened]... given after death and without direct feedback to a society - as it no longer serves any purpose.

“…None of these can be explained as rational universal laws, yet we hold them so dear that we usually speak of them AS IF it is assumed that they are universal laws….” ( my emphasis )

I believe you make an important observation here.

Now, I could be very wrong about this but; I have come to strongly suspect that, in people’s minds that consciously recognise that morality isn't a universal law, somehow, at some level, their brains do NOT recognise that morality isn't a universal law and thus, in some strange sense, they actually believe that morality IS a universal law –and believe this without consciously realising they believe this! –and it is THIS that explains why people speak of morality "AS IF", as you said, it is assumed that they are universal laws

That theory may seem a little absurd or even contradictory but I don’t believe it is because it would be like somebody suffering what psychiatrists would call “blindsight” having their eyes see a dangerous snake in front of him but he still consciously believes there is no danger in front of him despite being at a loss to explain why he doesn’t want to move forward –at some level in some sense his brain “believes” there is danger there even though he consciously doesn’t!

I further postulate that it is virtually impossible for us to even merely talk about “moral” or “immoral” or “right” or “wrong” or “ought” or “should” (the moral sense of these words only ) without inadvertently making our brains at some level make the error of “believing” that morality is from universal laws ( even if we don’t consciously believe this ) and thus the only reasonable way of preventing ourselves from making this unconscious error is to learn to avoid the use of words like “moral” or “immoral” or “right” or “wrong” or “ought” or “should” ( the moral sense of these words only ) and this is the policy I would like everyone to adopt.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see this as simple as you are making it out to be with evolution and game
theory.

With evolution we have go from where we have none to something that is in its
current state or current level of existence today. So what you’re doing is talking
about values fully developed with cause and justifying them. Where would values
come from that puts t seem to work,
so why would it ever start to begin with than continue until today?
Kelly

“…So what you’re doing is talking about values fully developed with CAUSE and JUSTIFYING them….” ( my emphasis )

Reading what twhitehead said, he did say the “CAUSE” of them ( or at least sort-of I think ) but where did he “JUSTIFYING” them?


“…Where would values
come from that puts those closely related to one as important than those that
were not? This is a serious question, why value those closer to you, if before no
one or nothing ever did that before?..”

Evolution –our brains evolved to make us have an innate tendency to become more emotionally attached to some people than others and to form friendship etc.

“…With emotions it goes way beyond a simple standard of values now we have
entered into love and hate, which if nothing ever loved or hated before why would
that just show up out of nowhere?...”

again, from evolution ( and not from “nowhere” ).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…So what you’re doing is talking about values fully developed with CAUSE and JUSTIFYING them….” ( my emphasis )

Reading what twhitehead said, he did say the “CAUSE” of them ( or at least sort-of I think ) but where did he “JUSTIFYING” them?


“…Where would values
come from that puts those closely related to one as important than those that
...[text shortened]... ould
that just show up out of nowhere?...”

again, from evolution ( and not from “nowhere” ).

You are justifying the need, you are not addressing the how it occured? What
possible reason would evolution code within DNA that ability? Without a cause
there has to be forces that direct the coding to make this occur!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…So what you’re doing is talking about values fully developed with CAUSE and JUSTIFYING them….” ( my emphasis )

Reading what twhitehead said, he did say the “CAUSE” of them ( or at least sort-of I think ) but where did he “JUSTIFYING” them?


“…Where would values
come from that puts those closely related to one as important than those that
...[text shortened]... ould
that just show up out of nowhere?...”

again, from evolution ( and not from “nowhere” ).

twhitehead said,

"Which is a result of evolution and game theory.

I must also mention other motivations that result from the same: "

Saying morals is a result of evolution and game theory and other motivations says
to me that is why he thinks morals are here, which is justification in my opinion, he
is giving their reason for being.
Kelly