100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Universal Morality - Trust/Truth | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
With all of the morality threads here and elsewhere that make mention of some universal element it seems that at least one would argue for what that is - without violating Hume's Guillotine. Wanting to see what others think about that idea has always intrigued me. Due to how the topic is usually approached, I think that a successful approach to universal morality is often defeated prior to it's first step. It is in the method of approach that utterances of ought, 'right and wrong', and 'good and evil/bad' has hindered our understanding of what morality is, what brings it about, and how we - as a people - should pursue it. I outright deny a prescriptive and/or normative assessment of morality as showing us what morality is. Those methods are adopted belief about morality. The meta-ethical approach has yet to have gathered the adequate available knowledge and put it to proper use. The concept has problems, as we all know. We also all know that it is impossible, as humans, to abandon it completely. It is obviously *real*. Although, I've obviously thought about this considerably, this argument(which doesn't have the best format) was 'thrown' together on the fly last night and posted in another thread, however, I feel that it is worthy of it's own examination. So, all you morality buffs, have at it!
There are historical similiarites regarding ethics/morality. The common denominators converge upon the same thing. That is behavioral expectation of oneself or another. Morality/ethics is always about acceptable/unacceptable behavioral expectation. I think that how morality has been and continues to be framed in our thought only examines belief about morality. It is conclusion based. I say that that is being conflated with morality itself. Morality is instantiated prior to our belief about it. Much confusion has resulted from having been historically attached to God, and oftentimes it's pursuasive influence incorrectly found to be equally fallible by the same regard. First things first... Number one problem - 'God' is in the way to properly assess morality. Removing the need for such takes precedence. Definition 1.) Belief is that which is accepted as being true(accurately corresponding to reality). Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation. Definition 3.) Moral belief is belief regarding acceptable/unacceptable behavior. p1.) We all have moral belief. p2.) We do not all hold a belief in 'God'. C.) 'God' does not entail moral belief. Another problem with morality, as it has been thought about throughout the ages, is that it has been framed as being belief based and has been demonstrated and examined through the product of such - through utterances of ought(s). Hume convinced us all that one cannot derive an ought from is, or vice-versa, without necessarily presupposing another ought. Let us then, use that to our advantage. The horse is dead. It is time to embrace the Guillotine rather than avoid it. We are newborns in a real sense concerning secular 'morality'. Morality is not expressed through an ought utterance, belief about morality is. There exists a universal constant which applies to all humans, regardless of particulars, that amounts to being a behavioral expectation(which ethics and morality both converge upon) that is not being met to the degree that it necessarily instantiates itself prior to our having the ability to acquire adopted belief about morality('sense' of ought). This I intend to show. p1.) We are necessarily social creatures. p2.) We are born void of belief. p3.) We are born rational creatures. Axiom1: I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true. C.) It is humanly impossible knowingly believe a falsehood. C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake. Axiom 2: The ability to doubt requires prior belief upon which the doubt is grounded. C.) One cannot doubt whether or not the terms being learned through common language are true - accurately correspond to their referent(reality). C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so. C3.) We all instantiate and therefore use a correspondence theory of truth. Belief is had in two forms, original and adopted. Original would constitute the conscious correlations made between objects of perception after our physiological sensory perception begins working, and necessarily results from our being born rational creatures. Adopted belief is that which we learn to correlate though common language. In order to even be able to learn a common language, one must necessarily place 'pure' faith(unquestionable trust/belief unimpeded by doubt) in the teacher of that language to be truthful in their testimony. That is the universally applicable common denominator in human behavioral expectation(universal morality). All imaginable and real moral/ethical codes converge upon this - without exception, therefore it constitutes being universal. In science meeting that criterion constitutes being called Law. Yes, I am claiming that the fundamental basis of morality/ethics is necessarily instantiated through our obtaining common language. This includes the ability to learn anything from another through common language(adopted belief), because it is necessary in order to even be able to learn one's native tongue, regardless of the particulars. That is what is. Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing? This is a philosophical topic, so please keep the religion out of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 09/04/10 02:40 PM
|
|
With all of the morality threads here and elsewhere that make mention of some universal element it seems that at least one would argue for what that is - without violating Hume's Guillotine. Wanting to see what others think about that idea has always intrigued me. Due to how the topic is usually approached, I think that a successful approach to universal morality is often defeated prior to it's first step. It is in the method of approach that utterances of ought, 'right and wrong', and 'good and evil/bad' has hindered our understanding of what morality is, what brings it about, and how we - as a people - should pursue it. I outright deny a prescriptive and/or normative assessment of morality as showing us what morality is. Those methods are adopted belief about morality. The meta-ethical approach has yet to have gathered the adequate available knowledge and put it to proper use. The concept has problems, as we all know. We also all know that it is impossible, as humans, to abandon it completely. It is obviously *real*. Although, I've obviously thought about this considerably, this argument(which doesn't have the best format) was 'thrown' together on the fly last night and posted in another thread, however, I feel that it is worthy of it's own examination. So, all you morality buffs, have at it! There are historical similiarites regarding ethics/morality. The common denominators converge upon the same thing. That is behavioral expectation of oneself or another. Morality/ethics is always about acceptable/unacceptable behavioral expectation. I think that how morality has been and continues to be framed in our thought only examines belief about morality. It is conclusion based. I say that that is being conflated with morality itself. Morality is instantiated prior to our belief about it. Much confusion has resulted from having been historically attached to God, and oftentimes it's pursuasive influence incorrectly found to be equally fallible by the same regard. First things first... Number one problem - 'God' is in the way to properly assess morality. Removing the need for such takes precedence. Definition 1.) Belief is that which is accepted as being true(accurately corresponding to reality). Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation. Definition 3.) Moral belief is belief regarding acceptable/unacceptable behavior. p1.) We all have moral belief. p2.) We do not all hold a belief in 'God'. C.) 'God' does not entail moral belief. Another problem with morality, as it has been thought about throughout the ages, is that it has been framed as being belief based and has been demonstrated and examined through the product of such - through utterances of ought(s). Hume convinced us all that one cannot derive an ought from is, or vice-versa, without necessarily presupposing another ought. Let us then, use that to our advantage. The horse is dead. It is time to embrace the Guillotine rather than avoid it. We are newborns in a real sense concerning secular 'morality'. Morality is not expressed through an ought utterance, belief about morality is. There exists a universal constant which applies to all humans, regardless of particulars, that amounts to being a behavioral expectation(which ethics and morality both converge upon) that is not being met to the degree that it necessarily instantiates itself prior to our having the ability to acquire adopted belief about morality('sense' of ought). This I intend to show. p1.) We are necessarily social creatures. p2.) We are born void of belief. p3.) We are born rational creatures. Axiom1: I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true. C.) It is humanly impossible knowingly believe a falsehood. C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake. Axiom 2: The ability to doubt requires prior belief upon which the doubt is grounded. C.) One cannot doubt whether or not the terms being learned through common language are true - accurately correspond to their referent(reality). C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so. C3.) We all instantiate and therefore use a correspondence theory of truth. Belief is had in two forms, original and adopted. Original would constitute the conscious correlations made between objects of perception after our physiological sensory perception begins working, and necessarily results from our being born rational creatures. Adopted belief is that which we learn to correlate though common language. In order to even be able to learn a common language, one must necessarily place 'pure' faith(unquestionable trust/belief unimpeded by doubt) in the teacher of that language to be truthful in their testimony. That is the universally applicable common denominator in human behavioral expectation(universal morality). All imaginable and real moral/ethical codes converge upon this - without exception, therefore it constitutes being universal. In science meeting that criterion constitutes being called Law. Yes, I am claiming that the fundamental basis of morality/ethics is necessarily instantiated through our obtaining common language. This includes the ability to learn anything from another through common language(adopted belief), because it is necessary in order to even be able to learn one's native tongue, regardless of the particulars. That is what is. Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing? This is a philosophical topic, so please keep the religion out of it. p1.) We all have moral belief. I support this only on the basis of having to have a belief of something or somebody once it has been named. A belief of "I don't believe" is a belief. A god is not a thing of learning, it is a conceptual thing, over which we exercise a belief; and the belief is concerned over the existence or non-existence of god. Morality, ditto. There is no necessary belief that all of us must belief that morality exists, but some of us could say "I believe there is no such thing as morality." This still presupposes the fact that the utterer knows what morality is, he or she knows the basic concept and its specific requirements, except the utterer believes that those are false specs, and the concept is not necessary to exist. C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake. I reject this. I think I could only accept it if you reworded it to C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make an unintentional mistake. This is very, very important. Mistake by itself does not necessarily mean it is unintentional. Many will argue that mistake can only be unintentional. I don't believe that. If I am wrong, then please consider that in my wrong opinion I accept the reworded version. The reason intentional mistakes can be made is the reason of reference. Many acts are made; some are mistakes; but they are mistakes only in certain perspective, while in other perspectives they are not mistakes, and all conscious acts are done intentionally. Sometimes it is a lot of work to establish that an act is a mistake, by finding the reference of view in which it was an unintentional act causing a bad effect. All conscious acts are intentional, yet some aspects of intentional acts are unintentional, and these are not all mistakes, only if they have a bad effect. Whatever "bad" is. So instead of bogging ourselves down in separating the reference or view, I say that putting the word "unintentional" would nicely take care of this can of worms that can open every time we use the word "mistake", which would be, after all, a big mistake to do so. However, these two failures or mistakes in your presentation I won't even use in the description of my views. This was just a toccata. However, I have huge problems with your question at the end of your post, or questions: "Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing?" THAT condition? SUCH a thing? WHAT condition? WHICH thing? You actually forgot to name the condition that you say we keep violating, and you never named the thing that we continue to do. This question is unanswerable because of poor referencing. The references that you use are pronouns. The pronouns are demonstrative pronouns, and they are not at all clear what you point at with them. Your basic question, the two questions in the end, remind me very much of the posts of an interesting person who quit the site just recently. This person had not precognized that she was wreaking havoc by not referencing her posts correctly. If a speaker or writer produces references to unknown antecedents, then there is no way of knowing what the intention of each such occurrance is in the communication. I am sorry, I don't mean to upset you, but you made this mistake of indirectional referencing here, and I can't be sure whether your mistake was made intentionally or unintentionally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 09/04/10 03:22 PM
|
|
wux,
I am not following your objections here. For one, you're not showing the flaws you claim exist. Broken down point by point, for ease of discussion... creative: p1.) We all have moral belief. I support this only on the basis of having to have a belief of something or somebody once it has been named. A belief of "I don't believe" is a belief. A god is not a thing of learning, it is a conceptual thing, over which we exercise a belief; and the belief is concerned over the existence or non-existence of god. Morality, ditto. There is no necessary belief that all of us must belief that morality exists, but some of us could say "I believe there is no such thing as morality." This still presupposes the fact that the utterer knows what morality is, he or she knows the basic concept and its specific requirements, except the utterer believes that those are false specs, and the concept is not necessary to exist. How does this contradict the claim that we all have moral belief; belief about acceptable/unacceptable behavior? creative: C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake. wux: I reject this. I think I could only accept it if you reworded it to C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make an unintentional mistake. This is very, very important. Mistake by itself does not necessarily mean it is unintentional. Many will argue that mistake can only be unintentional. I don't believe that. If I am wrong, then please consider that in my wrong opinion I accept the reworded version. The reason intentional mistakes can be made is the reason of reference. Many acts are made; some are mistakes; but they are mistakes only in certain perspective, while in other perspectives they are not mistakes, and all conscious acts are done intentionally. Sometimes it is a lot of work to establish that an act is a mistake, by finding the reference of view in which it was an unintentional act causing a bad effect. All conscious acts are intentional, yet some aspects of intentional acts are unintentional, and they are not all mistakes. So instead of bogging ourselves down in separating the reference or view, I say that putting the word "unintentional" would nicely take care of this can of worms that can open every time we use the word "mistake", which would be, after all, a big mistake to do so. However, these two failures or mistakes in your presentation I won't even use in the description of my views. This was just a toccata. Nothing written here contradicts the argument wux. See if this helps: A mistake is a flaw in one's volitional capability, necessarily so. One intentionally takes action based upon forseen consequences. Necessarily so. If the outcome meets the expectation, there is no mistake. Only when the outcome contradicts the desired expectation is a mistake had. The argument was also not presented in your objection, only that conclusion. It necessarily follows from the axiom and secondary premiss(first conclusion). Axiom1: I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true. The above is necessarily true. Therefore so is the below... C.) It is humanly impossible knowingly believe a falsehood. Because the above two premisses are necessarily true, and we know that one takes action based upon volition, this necessarily follows, and is therefore also true. C2.) It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake. wux: However, I have huge problems with your question at the end of your post, or questions: "Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing?" THAT condition? SUCH a thing? What condition? WHICH thing? You actually forgot to name the condition that you say we keep violating, and you never named the thing that we continue to do. No, I didn't forget wux, it required looking back at the argument in question. Here it is again. Because morality/ethics is always about behavioral expectation, as per the argument preceding, that becomes the focus. The following represents a universally applicable behavioral expectation that must exist prior to having learned anything through language. As written, with the answer to your question bolded for additional clarity. In order to even be able to learn a common language, one must necessarily place 'pure' faith(unquestionable trust/belief unimpeded by doubt) in the teacher of that language to be truthful in their testimony. That is the universally applicable common denominator in human behavioral expectation(universal morality). Sorry if you feel it was not referenced well enough. Perhaps a more careful reading of the entire argument will help. It is not a simple matter of investigation. wux: I am sorry, I don't mean to upset you, but you made this mistake here, and I can't be sure whether it was intentional or unintentional. No worries wux, I am not upset. It is humanly impossible to intentionally make a mistake, as per shown in the argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason intentional mistakes can be made is the reason of reference. Many acts are made; some are mistakes; but they are mistakes only in certain perspective, while in other perspectives they are not mistakes, and all conscious acts are done intentionally. Sometimes it is a lot of work to establish that an act is a mistake, by finding the reference of view in which it was an unintentional act causing a bad effect. All conscious acts are intentional, yet some aspects of intentional acts are unintentional, and they are not all mistakes. So instead of bogging ourselves down in separating the reference or view, I say that putting the word "unintentional" would nicely take care of this can of worms that can open every time we use the word "mistake", which would be, after all, a big mistake to do so. However, these two failures or mistakes in your presentation I won't even use in the description of my views. This was just a toccata. Just so you do not think I flippantly dismissed your objection... It seems that there is some confusion here regarding the subjectivity factor. You've called that perspective. It is rather simple though, really. One's perspective regarding another's actions that results in calling that action 'a mistake' is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it was a mistake is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of whether or not the intentional action taken produced the expected result... Personal value assessment plays no role here, wux. Just because one may or may not agree with the results of another's choice has no bearing upon whether or not the results of that choice met the prior expectation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it still matters, that wording of that particular conclusion could be slightly changed without losing it's meaning nor validity.
C2.) It is humanly impossible to knowingly make a mistake. It makes no difference, you see, because all voluntary and deliberate action is based upon belief and it is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. It necessarily follows from I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true either way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 09/04/10 08:25 PM
|
|
Very well.
"How does this contradict the claim that we all have moral belief; belief about acceptable/unacceptable behavior?" Did not contradict. Your statement "we all have a moral belief" is not contradictory or false. The significance of my statement was that the belief, as defined by you, does not mean that the belief is also a stand on one or another moral stance. In other words, you called all knowledge "belief", and therefore if you define something by a set of qualities, it automatically follows that your listener will understand what that thing is, without necessarily believing it is true. Earlier you said, "I believe X" is equivalent to "I believe X is true". You did not say anything about knowledge. You seemed to say that life is a continuing process of acquiring beliefs. In this sense, there is no knowledge, only beliefs; and a person can acquire a belief which he does not think is true. For instance, God is a belief, and some people say "God exists" and others say "God does not exist." Both have a belief only in their knowledge what God is; and in the sense both have therefore a belief of what God is; but one believes that God exists, the other does not. So this is what I meant to say that saying and implying what "moral" means is already excluding any listener from not believing it. I am trying to say that though other than our own minds, nothing else can be proven to exist, empirically, and therefore everything other than a person's own mind is unknown, unproven to exist, therefore nothing more than a belief. However, there is belief and belief; there are some thing that are more believable than others, and though it's not truly "knowledge" that we possess over the claim of their existence, it is still a higher degree of certainty than mere belief. Therefore I think that your reducing all knowables to a single- level believability of belief in them (or not) is not sufficiently descriptive of humans' way of accepting truths. Thanks for asking for this qualification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 09/04/10 08:22 PM
|
|
I still am at a loss to answer your questions at the end of your
original post, because your explanation did not throw enough light on them for me to know what it is that the demostrative pronouns refer to. I don't know; it may be my ineptitude. But I can only answer questions that I know what they are. "How do they measure up to those? Which do you agree with, out of their samples? How many of them are in line with those?" If you can answer these questions in the quotationmarks to my satisfaction, I'll answer your questions at the end of your article. Until then, please realize I honestly don't know what you are asking with the two questions at the end. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Thorb
on
Sat 09/04/10 08:49 PM
|
|
If it still matters, that wording of that particular conclusion could be slightly changed without losing it's meaning nor validity. C2.) It is humanly impossible to knowingly make a mistake. It makes no difference, you see, because all voluntary and deliberate action is based upon belief and it is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. It necessarily follows from I believe 'X' means I believe 'X' is true either way. It depends who thinks its a mistake... you are dealing with a value judgment in the word itself it is easy to intentionally make what another would determine a mistake. p.s. I do see the overall argument as valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The significance of my statement was that the belief, as defined by you, does not mean that the belief is also a stand on one or another moral stance. No, it does not. I agree. In other words, you called all knowledge "belief", and therefore if you define something by a set of qualities, it automatically follows that your listener will understand what that thing is, without necessarily believing it is true. All knowledge is belief. JTB Earlier you said, "I believe X" is equivalent to "I believe X is true". You did not say anything about knowledge. Knowledge need not be invoked, it is irrelevent to the argument. You seemed to say that life is a continuing process of acquiring beliefs. In this sense, there is no knowledge, only beliefs; and a person can acquire a belief which he does not think is true. For instance, God is a belief, and some people say "God exists" and others say "God does not exist." Both have a belief only in their knowledge what God is; and in the sense both have therefore a belief of what God is; but one believes that God exists, the other does not. One's having knowledge of another's existing belief, and one's holding that belief are two completely separate cases. You're conflating the two. This complicates things unnecessarily. Life can be a continuing process of acquiring beliefs and contain knowledge as well. The distinction between knowledge and belief is irrelevent to the argument. It is a separate subject matter and has no bearing. So this is what I meant to say that saying and implying what "moral" means is already excluding any listener from not believing it. We have no choice but to possess moral belief. The method used was purely deductive. The definition comes from what is the case at hand. There are no exceptions here, wux, we all have those kinds of belief. We must, for the reasons already given. It is a case of truth and necessity. I am trying to say that though other than our own minds, nothing else can be proven to exist, empirically, and therefore everything other than a person's own mind is unknown, unproven to exist, therefore nothing more than a belief. This is nonsense wux. If you understand these words, we can and do know things. Your argument seem to hint at the concept of warrant(that which constitutes sufficient reason to believe. That is covered in the argument given, although it is implicit. Again, the distinction between knowledge and belief plays no role here. However, there is belief and belief; there are some thing that are more believable than others, and though it's not truly "knowledge" that we possess over the claim of their existence, it is still a higher degree of certainty than mere belief. Therefore I think that your reducing all knowables to a single- level believability of belief in them (or not) is not sufficiently descriptive of humans' way of accepting truths. Thanks for asking for this qualification. There can be no level of certainty prior to conviction, which necessitates existing belief. This is also necessarily the case, as has been laid out. All doubt is doubting the truth of, doubting whether or not the statement corresponds to reality. That is grounded by previously held contradictory belief(s) which deny the claim in doubt. My argument is concerned with logical possibility prior to and as we acquire common language. After langauge and culture it is a different ballgame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still am at a loss to answer your questions at the end of your original post, because your explanation did not throw enough light on them for me to know what it is that the demostrative pronouns refer to. I don't know; it may be my ineptitude. But I can only answer questions that I know what they are. "How do they measure up to those? Which do you agree with, out of their samples? How many of them are in line with those?" If you can answer these questions in the quotation marks to my satisfaction, I'll answer your questions at the end of your article. Until then, please realize I honestly don't know what you are asking with the two questions at the end. Because morality/ethics are always about behavioral expectation of oneself or another, we can know that all moral/ethical codes share this element. It is universally applicable and without exception. My argument shows how this is instantiated through necessity. That invokes the fact that we necessarily share the same warrant and the same behavioral expectation of another prior to our acquisition of common langauge, regardless of particulars. One must trust another to be truthful in the testimony of and about the world in order to even be able to learn a common language, because we have no ability to doubt at that time. That fact establishes a universally applicable and demonstrable case of shared behavioral expectation - without exception. Universal morality. That is what is. The questions remain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....I think that your reducing all knowables to a single- level believability of belief in them (or not) is not sufficiently descriptive of humans' way of accepting truths. I agree. It may seem to be this way (one level - is or is not) when one focuses on the language-oriented portion of one's mind - and further focuses attention on whether one might assert something as true. It may be even more likely to seem this way for people who are more inclined towards logic, esp. There are aspects of my mind which are unconcerned with assertions - more concerned with impressions, experiences, senses, and feelings. In these spaces one might say that I hold beliefs without assertions, and hold beliefs which would be appear as contradictions if I tried to represent those beliefs as assertions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand both of your questions on this. I doubt whether or not the understanding is mutual, specifically whether the objection matches the given claim. I am saying that it is impossible for someone to doubt whether or not such and such a vocalization accurately corresponds to this or that referent(reality) prior to having acquiring some amount of belief/understanding through language. That is established a priori by our knowing that all doubt is doubting the truth of claim(doubting whether or not the claim corresponds to reality), and that is always grounded in prior belief or current observation.
One must first understand the words that constitute being the claim prior to having the ability to doubt it. One cannot doubt the meaning of words without a baseline of understanding through language from which the doubt arises. In other words, one cannot doubt whether or not the meaning of a word corresponds to reality(is accurate) without knowing what the word means. That is correspondence theory of truth being instantiated through the act of learning language, and is not being properly represented by the given objection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oooooooops ... sorry - I was looking for the restroom ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to post my thoughts on a few things for whatever they are worth. These thoughts are purely spontaneous thoughts that came to me as I read through this model. They are not intended to be "argumentative", however, the thoughts I have do bring up what I see as a contradition in this model.
So I'll just post my thoughts as they came to me. Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation. When I read this definition my first reaction was that I'm not sure if I agree with this definition. I was going to ask how you arrived at this definition or presumption? However as I read further I found, what I believe to be a contradiction in your overall model. You say: p1.) We are necessarily social creatures. I agree 100%. At least in most normal settings since human children are seldom raised by wolves except in fairytales. And then we have: p2.) We are born void of belief. Again, I agree. However, I suddenly realized that this is in conflict with the definition above that had initially bothered me. If we are born void of belief, then how can it be said that Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation? It seems to me that if we take p2 at face value, then morality cannot be innate but rather it must arise from social interactions as we grow. So it seems to me to be a conflict between P2 and Definition 2. It's my personal "view" or "feeling" (and I'm not even sure if I would call it a "belief"), that nature herself is immoral (at least from my perspective). The natural world is basically dog-eat-dog. Whether it's animals eating animals, or viruses and bacteria infesting animals causing disease (which is basically still animals eating animals actually). To me that's "immoral". Or at the very least it doesn't seem "right" to me. I honestly don't even care for the term "morality" because that implies to me that there are well-thought out rules and some rules are being broken. From my point of view, a dog-eat-dog world just isn't 'right'. And if morality is about "right versus wrong" then I personally feel that this universe itself is an "immoral" place. Is that a "belief"? A judgement? A view? A feeling? I don't know how to label it. All I know is that, to me, a universe that is naturally dog-eat-dog just ain't right. I also feel that I have come to this feeling (or belief) based on nothing other than my own personal "feelings" on the matter. A lot of people don't seem to mind that the universe is naturally dog-eat-dog. In other words, I certainly didn't get this sense of "morality" from the society in which I live. ~~~~ Finally, just for the record, whilst I see the value in building "Moral Philosophies" to offer up for possible consensus as the guiding system of a society, I have very little hope (or belief) that any system will ever be accepted by everyone, or ever seen as being the "logical utopia" that should be used. And the reason for this stems directly from my observations above. Like I say, from my point of view the universe iself is "immoral" (or at least exibits what I considered to be properties and behaviors that are less than "right"). After having made that observation, does it even make any sense to speak about any sort of 'absolute morality' in an immoral universe? That seems to me to toss a serious wrench in the whole idea of what consitutes "moral behavior". I mean, if the universe itself doesn't have any moral values then why should the creatures that evolved in it have any better moral values? And, for me, that's an extremely profound question. Why? Well, because here I am, a product of the universe looking back at the universe and viewing the universe itself (my creator) as being immoral. That's almost an oxymoron right there, yet that's precisely how I feel. What sense of "morality" can I even speak about when my moral values are "higher" (in my mind) than the very thing that created me? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation. p2.) We are born void of belief. ... this is in conflict with the definition above that had initially bothered me. If we are born void of belief, then how can it be said that Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation? Depending on how one interprets these words, this may not be a real contradiction. We are void of definitive, conscious beliefs. We are void of assertions. We are not void of preferences, experiences, or sense. We may (?) like the sound of our mothers heartbeat even before we are born. We may (?) like the feeling of being rocked, even before we are born. We also may have inclinations which are not dependent on beliefs (as assertions), including genetic predispositions. Some of this inclinations may be a foundation for innate morality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation. p2.) We are born void of belief. ... this is in conflict with the definition above that had initially bothered me. If we are born void of belief, then how can it be said that Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation? Depending on how one interprets these words, this may not be a real contradiction. We are void of definitive, conscious beliefs. We are void of assertions. We are not void of preferences, experiences, or sense. We may (?) like the sound of our mothers heartbeat even before we are born. We may (?) like the feeling of being rocked, even before we are born. We also may have inclinations which are not dependent on beliefs (as assertions), including genetic predispositions. Some of this inclinations may be a foundation for innate morality. Well, it wasn't really intended as an "argument". It was merely a sharing of impressions. I personally have a problem with definition 2, in and of itself. Again this is just sharing my impressions and not intended as a logical argument. Just the same I can analyze this logical as well in an effort to see if there is some "rationality" for my intuitive feelings. After all we have P3 also, which has also been my personal experience. Or at least I like to think that I'm rational: p3.) We are born rational creatures. Although I have met a lot of humans whom I personally do not feel are very rational. So I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept P3 as an absolute for everyone.  But getting back to the original Definition 2. When I read it I instantly felt that there were inconsistencies in there. Even within that definition before I even got to P2. And just to offer a "rational" or "logical" analysis in hindsight, I can see where my intuitive feelings came from (perhaps they were ultimately "rational" feelings. And it goes as follows: The definition starts out "Morality is innate", which I think would be a really tough thing to actually show since it would be difficult to know what a new born baby is thinking in terms of "morality". To be perfectly honest about it I doubt very seriously that a new born baby even makes any such "judgments". So to even speak of innate morality is a highly questionable "opinion" is it not? I mean how could any such thing be even remotely measured? It almost necessarily needs to be a guess. But then the definition continues on to say, "and universally shared behavioral expectation". Behavioral expectation? For me, just intuitively I wouldn't expect any notion of "Behavior Expectations" to emerge until there has indeed be quite a bit of social interaction. In fact, should the mere fact that people who live in different cultures often share the same behavioral expectations pretty much seal the deal on the idea that "behavior expectations" are pretty much culturally driven? I could be misreading all of this. I'm just offering my initial reactions to what I read. I'm just not prepared to accept these definitions and postulates as they are without considering how they sit with me, and basically they don't sit.  So I'm really just sharing my views on how they appear to me. I'm not attempting to argue for any "absolute logic here". In fact, I personally don't believe in "Absolute logic" anyway. I personally feel that much of what we deem to be "logical" is itself quite subjective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ... In fact, I personally don't believe in "Absolute logic" anyway. I personally feel that much of what we deem to be "logical" is itself quite subjective. ... " That, sir, is the most insightful posting in this thread ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KingsKnight,
Charming. The subjective/objective concerns are a different topic that can be readily deconstructed.  James, I understand your concerns, especially concerning morality as convention has it. My argument defies convention through deductive corrective means... necessarily so. It also has empirical premisses for good reason. The argument actually alreasy addresses your concerns to an extent, and massage noted that I think. I'll come back later to explain a little more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael,
It's not my intent to argue against your views. I'm simply trying to explain my answer to the question you posed in the OP. To begin with I'm simply not prepared to accept the following premises: Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared p1.) We all have moral belief. p3.) We are born rational creatures. C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so. I've already addressed my concerns about Definition #2. However, to offer something a bit more concrete I'd like to also add the following: I recall watching a documentary where psychologists were testing children to see at what age they can grasp the "theory of mind", where they were using that term to simply mean the ability to recognize when they are being cheated, or lied to, etc.. The result was that children under the ages of about 3 to 4 years old could not even grasp this concept. They even showed some pretty convincing video clips of how they tested these children. So the bottom line for me is that if a human being can't even grasp "theory of mind" until they are 3 or 4 years old, then to even speak of them having a sense of 'morality' prior to that age seems untenable. Yet your definition states that morality is innate. That "irrational" based on this information, IMHO. Let's move on to my next objection: p1.) We all have moral belief. Again, I disagree. I've met people who have no morals at all so I see no reason to accept that we all have moral belief. p3.) We are born rational creatures. Well, again, I've met enough irrational people in my life to highly question this premise as well. C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so. Necessarily so according to who? Many people who believe in a spirit world also believe that new born babies and very young children still have a very vivid connection to the spirit world. Many people even believe that the degree to which we remain connected to this spiritual world may vary from person to person for a myriad of spiritual reasons. So the assumption that we're all born as naive realists may not be true for everyone. This is almost an atheistic view. In other words, it already assumes a 'non-belief' in a spiritual essence to reality. That is what is. Well, a this point I'm already in disagreement with your model so I'm not prepared to accept; "That is what is". Tell me then, why have we violated that universally shared human condition? Perhaps the better question is why ought we continue to do such a thing? So I hope you can see why your question is utterly meaningless at this point. Your question already assumes that I've accepted that you model "is what is", and clearly I'm already not in agreement with that. So this is all I'm trying to say. I disagree with your premises, therefore your question is moot for me. I simply don't agree that your description "is what is". That's all I'm saying. I'm not even offering it up as an "argument". I'm simply attempting to convey my impressions of your presentation. I'm not attempting to "correct you". If you believe in your premises then please feel free to move forward with that with others who might accept them. I'm just offering that I don't even agree with your premises, so I can't even get into your question which "presumes" that I've accepted your premises. So please understand that I'm not attempting to 'argue'. I'm simply trying to explain my impressions and views concerning the topic. I doubt seriously that I will change my views on this, and I really have no desire to change yours. I'm just offering what it is that I disagree with why. I try to offer some explanation of why I hold my views only in the interest of offering my rationale for whatever it's worth.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a wonderful approach James... Kudos!
Your intent was well explained, and I hope you'll know that this post shares that same intent. Only at clarification is this post aimed, specifically regarding the issues you've presented as being problematic in your view. This, like your response, is not intended to demean your position or argue against your position, only to clarify my own, based upon my own "rationale" concerning the points you've raised. creative: Definition 2.) Morality is innate and universally shared(behavioral expectation) p1.) We all have moral belief. p3.) We are born rational creatures. C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so. Abra: I've already addressed my concerns about Definition #2. It seems that you've arrived at something which the argument does not claim. I think that that is what grounds your objection here. What follows is your earlier concerns and my response to those. I attempted to note my parts with asterisks. Abra wrote: When I read this definition my first reaction was that I'm not sure if I agree with this definition. I was going to ask how you arrived at this definition or presumption? However as I read further I found, what I believe to be a contradiction in your overall model. You say: *******p1.) We are necessarily social creatures.******* I agree 100%. At least in most normal settings since human children are seldom raised by wolves except in fairytales. And then we have: *******p2.) We are born void of belief.******* Again, I agree. However, I suddenly realized that this is in conflict with the definition above that had initially bothered me. If we are born void of belief, then how can it be said that Morality is innate and universally shared behavioral expectation? Morality is not moral belief. Only when we treat those things as being equal does there seem to be a problem. That being said, there is a legitimate complaint regarding the definition resulting from my sloppiness when formulating this post. All universal behavioral expectation does not constitute being of traditional moral concern. We have those expectations regarding inanimate objects falling through space, for instance. The power in the argument comes from identifying the fact that all moral/ethical codes are about behavioral expectation of oneself or another. The argument then drives a wedge of necessity between morality and moral belief in two ways. One is had through establishing the basic kinds of belief, which shows that moral belief is adopted through common language, and the other through establishing that there is an extant, necessary, and universally shared behavioral expectation(of another)- an logically necessary instance of universal morality - prior to having adopted any specific common language. Morality, in it's most basic form is therefore, a necessary and universally shared human condition and the proof of this is shown as necessary for the act of learning anything through common language. In other words, contrary to popular opinion and common/historical convention, morality is instantiated prior to moral belief. That is clearly shown as being a matter of necessity. Abra wrote: Let's move on to my next objection: *******p1.) We all have moral belief.******* Again, I disagree. I've met people who have no morals at all so I see no reason to accept that we all have moral belief. I can see where one could conclude that another "has no morals" through a comparitive analysis of different moral codes to their own. However, I think it very suspect, even impossible, to conclude that another human has no moral belief whatsoever due to such a comparison. It is important to remember that moral belief between people and groups is not necessarily in agreement, but that does not constitute having no moral belief. *******p3.) We are born rational creatures.******* Well, again, I've met enough irrational people in my life to highly question this premise as well. Being born rational creatures simply means that we have the innate ability to identify, recognize, and correlate between ourselves and objects of perception. That entails our being born thinking creatures. It also entails that we are born with the ability to recognize causal relationships. *******C2.) We are born naive realists, necessarily so.******* Necessarily so according to who? Many people who believe in a spirit world also believe that new born babies and very young children still have a very vivid connection to the spirit world. Many people even believe that the degree to which we remain connected to this spiritual world may vary from person to person for a myriad of spiritual reasons. So the assumption that we're all born as naive realists may not be true for everyone. This is almost an atheistic view. In other words, it already assumes a 'non-belief' in a spiritual essence to reality. It is not a matter of subjective personal belief, nor is it a matter of atheism. It is a matter of what is necessary for those and other kinds of belief systems to even be able to develop. This reasoning uses examples of mature belief systems in a way that attempts to claim that one can be born with such a belief system. An adult's belief system has gone through the tranformation process, but the argument isn't claiming that all people maintain that worldview(naive realism). Rather, it shows through logical necessity that in order to even be able to learn a common language, both naive realism and the correspondence theory of truth must be instantiated. It is obvious that mature belief systems are learned through common language, and therefore are a matter of adopted belief. Naive realism holds to the idea that the world around us is as we see it. In order to even be able to learn that such and such a vocalization means this or that referent(reality), one must believe that the vocalization is true(is an accurate representation of reality). That cannot happen if we do not believe that the term represents the referent. That is naive realism in it's most basic form. |
|
|
|
|
