Determining what is “moral”

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” ).

Evolution is a process, it isn't a place that things come from they either get molded
from the process, or they do not unless of course someone put them there.
Kelly

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
I see what you mean but I don't think I agree, I don't think there is any level on which I believe in objective moral facts or properties. Mind you, this will depend on what your definition of belief is.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
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 oral facts or properties. Mind you, this will depend on what your definition of belief is.

Not to mention the notion of 'objective'. Mind independent? No. Obtaining despite personal belief to the contrary? Yes. And the notion of 'fact'. Identical with purely descriptive facts, events, states of affairs? No. Having truth-conditions? Yes. And what about 'universal law'? Universally endorsed? No. Universally binding on human agents? Yes, at some level of description. And what of the 'rational criteria' mentioned in the original post? Provable, or even shown reasonable, from plausible descriptive premises? No. Reasonable against the background of substantive normative judgments of most humans? Yes, for many claims in ethics.

Originally posted by bbarr
Not to mention the notion of 'objective'. Mind independent? No. Obtaining despite personal belief to the contrary? Yes. And the notion of 'fact'. Identical with purely descriptive facts, events, states of affairs? No. Having truth-conditions? Yes. And what about 'universal law'? Universally endorsed? No. Universally binding on human agents? Yes, a ...[text shortened]... ound of substantive normative judgments of most humans? Yes, for many claims in ethics.

I agree. I think the Searle's distinction between epistemically objective and ontologically objective is useful when talking about this.

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 ...[text shortened]... ous question, why value those closer to you, if before no
one or nothing ever did that before?

I need to point out that this behavior of favoring those closely related to you is seen throughout virtually the whole animal kingdom and probably much of the plant kingdom too. It doesn't have to involve emotions at all. It arises naturally as a result of evolution and game theory in just about all populations.
In animals that have complex brains, the emotions will arise. We see different patterns and different levels of emotion depending on what type of lifestyle and organism has. Or lifestyle happens to be quite communal and we see the relevant emotions.

There is simply no other reasonable explanation for these emotions.
Why do you think we 'love'? Is it a 'brute fact'? Why do you think helping others is 'right'? Is it too a brute fact?

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?
Basic feelings are a result of a complex brain. How they manifest, ie who and what you love or hate is a result of evolution.

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.
I am not sure what you mean here. I must point out that even a cat or dog understands punishment. Even my pet hamster does. If his friend spends too much time on the exercise wheel then give him a bite and he will get off. Do either of the hamsters realize that it is morally wrong to monopolize the exercise wheel? I doubt it.

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
Again, I don't really follow you. You say it doesn't work, yet here we are.
A society designed with intelligence would not have all the hate, and punishment would not be necessary. Both are a result of the fact that some people will always benefit personally by going against the society and the rest of society must have a way to keep them in line. This delicate balance is predicted by game theory and is what we see.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]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 oral facts or properties. Mind you, this will depend on what your definition of belief is.

[/b]What would a universal morality look like compared to one that isn't, when it comes
to the human race? I have to add the human race, because if there is one and
we are breaking it I imagine it would be one thing; if there isn't one and we are
trying to say there is, that would look like another thing all together!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I need to point out that this behavior of favoring those closely related to you is seen throughout virtually the whole animal kingdom and probably much of the plant kingdom too. It doesn't have to involve emotions at all. It arises naturally as a result of evolution and game theory in just about all populations.
In animals that have complex brains, the e ...[text shortened]... hem in line. This delicate balance is predicted by game theory and is what we see.

"Is it too a brute fact?"

I'm not sure what a brute fact is, something you think is beyond doubt?
You tell me if there isn't a real morality, why would it matter if I help or not
help someone else? Seriously, only those morals or values poeple setup for
themselves or what they can force on others would be the rule of the day that
is until it gets changed by another.

I'd have to care for someone in order to make them important enough for me to
rate them as someone I want to help along. If there is a morality that isn't made
up by us as we go along I imagine that then that morality would be from a source
greater than ourselves, since if it just another man or group of people telling me
what I should value, I could always just tell them to stick it, I got my own value
system thank you very much.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I need to point out that this behavior of favoring those closely related to you is seen throughout virtually the whole animal kingdom and probably much of the plant kingdom too. It doesn't have to involve emotions at all. It arises naturally as a result of evolution and game theory in just about all populations.
In animals that have complex brains, the e ...[text shortened]... hem in line. This delicate balance is predicted by game theory and is what we see.

Comlex brains is sort of vague don't you think, and animal feelings does not at
all address my question either since if I were to look at evolution all life would
at one point not have emotions and then later some would. My question is still
why would that ever happen?
I'll lay off this question until I read Knobs link however.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

“…You are justifying the need, you are not addressing the how it occured?...”

What?
You have lost me here.

“…What possible reason would evolution code within DNA that ability?...”

What do you mean by “reason” in the above?
Do you mean “cause” or do you mean “intelligent reason” with intent?
If you mean” cause” than the answer is that is just how evolution works: those individuals that have genes that give them emotions and behaviour ( regardless of whether these emotions and behaviour is based on rational beliefs/reasoning ) that are advantageous to their survival are selected by natural selection and then they pass-on those genes.
If you mean “intelligent reason” with intent then how do you know that there must be a “reason” in that sense of the word?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

“…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,…” ( my emphasis )

if what you mean by “WHY he thinks morals are here” in the above is what he thinks the CAUSE of them being here is then, yes, that is correct.

“…which is justification in my opinion…”

What do you mean by “justification” in the above context? I mean, “justification” of what exactly? Of why morals are here? There must be a “cause” for morals being here but I don’t know what you would mean by “justification” of morals being here ( assuming this is what you mean –is it? )

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution is a process, it isn't a place that things come from they either get molded
from the process, or they do not unless of course someone put them there.
Kelly

“…Evolution is a process,…”

yes

“…it isn't a place that things come from they either get molded
from the process, or they do not unless of course someone put them there….”

You have totally lost me: I have read the above again and again and also re-read the previous posts and I still have no idea what you mean from the above; especially the “or they do not unless of course someone put them there” part!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Comlex brains is sort of vague don't you think, and animal feelings does not at
all address my question either since if I were to look at evolution all life would
at one point not have emotions and then later some would. My question is still
why would that ever happen?
I'll lay off this question until I read Knobs link however.
Kelly

“…if I were to look at evolution all life would
at one point not have emotions and then later some would….”

Do you mean there was a time when no life had emotions and then some life did? –if so, then yes.

“…My question is still
why would that ever happen?...”

If what you mean by the above is what “cause” this then the answer is at some point in animal evolution there was a chance mutation in the genes of an animal ( the first one to have some kind of “emotion” ) that gave it the innate tendency to have some kind of extremely rudimentary form of “emotion” and this gave it an immediate survival advantage and thus it was selected by natural selection and then evolution took over from there and gradually, over many generations, refined those emotional instincts to make them more sophisticated and advantageous.

Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure what a brute fact is, something you think is beyond doubt?

By 'brute fact' I mean something that just is, without any reason behind it.

You tell me if there isn't a real morality, why would it matter if I help or not
help someone else?
It only matters if you want to remain part of the society - and if you want to avoid that feeling of guilt when you do wrong. We are programmed to help others (to some extent) and when we don't we feel guilty.

Seriously, only those morals or values poeple setup for themselves or what they can force on others would be the rule of the day that is until it gets changed by another.
I think we are programmed with the basic rules, rather than setting them up for ourselves. I also think that what we describe as moral behavior is the rules I listed in the first post, and is not necessarily connected to what we actually do. You seem to assume that we all behave morally or that we believe that behaving morally is the best or right thing to do. I don't think so.
I would quite readily commit an immoral act in favor of a loved one, but I don't describe love or the actions we make for love as 'morals'.

I'd have to care for someone in order to make them important enough for me to
rate them as someone I want to help along. If there is a morality that isn't made
up by us as we go along I imagine that then that morality would be from a source
greater than ourselves, since if it just another man or group of people telling me
what I should value, I could always just tell them to stick it, I got my own value
system thank you very much.
Kelly
I still dispute that we 'make it up as we go along'. I think the term 'morality' largely describes the concept 'do not harm others'. We give allowances for things like self preservation, love or other strong motivations, and we often disagree about how much allowance to give, but I do not think we make up morality. Morality describes a specific behavior, and the reason we follow that behavioral pattern is the need to survive in society. There is no need to introduce something 'greater than ourselves'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Comlex brains is sort of vague don't you think,

It is vague yes, but so is the term 'emotion'. Do computers have emotions? How would you tell? What is the test?
I know a cat can be emotional.
What about a fish? A snail? An ant? When do we cross the line between 'instinct' and 'emotion'?
Go too close to a beehive and the 'hive' gets 'angry' at you. Is that an emotion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I need to point out that this behavior of favoring those closely related to you is seen throughout virtually the whole animal kingdom and probably much of the plant kingdom too. It doesn't have to involve emotions at all. It arises naturally as a result of evolution and game theory in just about all populations.
In animals that have complex brains, the e ...[text shortened]... hem in line. This delicate balance is predicted by game theory and is what we see.

You are looking at this from our current point in time, I'm suggesting you start
thinking about what it was like before if evolution is true and somewhere in time
there was a point that nothing had feelings. An apple falling from a tree does so
due to the forces that are placed upon the tree and apple, so somewhere along
the way during the development of life a switch was turned on and feelings were
generated, so there was a time there were no feelings, then there were.

Like eye sight life didn't know what it was missing and some how that didn't matter
it got both sight and feelings. Both of these required several things to happen that
all connected and all worked together so that systems were formed that were able
to give life both feelings and sight.
Kelly