(October 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 4:07 pm)polymath257 Wrote: The nature of morality is the rules of behavior to produce societies that promote human well being. Which rules work best are partly determined by our genetics.

Who's well being?    You just seem to be trying to determine what is moral, and not making a case for what morality is.   You are making statements, and not giving reason or evidence for your position.  Morality is the principles concerning right and wrong behavior or what one ought to do.  How do you get there from evolution?

No, morality is the rules we adopt to promote human well being. Right and wrong are words we use to drive the point home, nothing more. Those rules come from our evolutionary past: they are the rule that promote well being *in humans*. Bonobos or chimps or dogs may well have very different rules based on *their* evolutionary past.
I consider most philosophical discussion concerning 'what something is' to be seriously flawed. They tend to assume an outdated concept of ontology. It is much better to determine the epistemology since that has practical aspects.

(October 4, 2018 at 4:51 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Who's well being?    You just seem to be trying to determine what is moral, and not making a case for what morality is.   You are making statements, and not giving reason or evidence for your position.  Morality is the principles concerning right and wrong behavior or what one ought to do.  How do you get there from evolution?

No, morality is the rules we adopt to promote human well being. Right and wrong are words we use to drive the point home, nothing more. Those rules come from our evolutionary past: they are the rule that promote well being *in humans*. Bonobos or chimps or dogs may well have very different rules based on *their* evolutionary past.
I consider most philosophical discussion concerning 'what something is' to be seriously flawed. They tend to assume an outdated concept of ontology. It is much better to determine the epistemology since that has practical aspects.

You don't think that the nature of something determines how you handle it?  And simply pointing out somethings age is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.  So if morality is merely rules, determined by society (or those with power anyway);  could we decide that what best promotes human well being, would be to kill those who are weaker and a drain on society?  The rules can simply be changed, if they are arbitrary, and call that good.  There is no morality in the rules themselves.   Is that what you are saying?

 Again, you seem to be arguing how we know what is moral and not whether or not morality is objective or subjective.   What makes you think morality is subjective?    Do you think that what is moral for one, can be immoral for another?   And I'll ask again, what in the subject is the basis for morality (is it just feelings or personal preference)?

(October 4, 2018 at 5:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 4:51 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, morality is the rules we adopt to promote human well being. Right and wrong are words we use to drive the point home, nothing more. Those rules come from our evolutionary past: they are the rule that promote well being *in humans*. Bonobos or chimps or dogs may well have very different rules based on *their* evolutionary past.
I consider most philosophical discussion concerning 'what something is' to be seriously flawed. They tend to assume an outdated concept of ontology. It is much better to determine the epistemology since that has practical aspects.

You don't think that the nature of something determines how you handle it?  And simply pointing out somethings age is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.  So if morality is merely rules, determined by society (or those with power anyway);  could we decide that what best promotes human well being, would be to kill those who are weaker and a drain on society?  The rules can simply be changed, if they are arbitrary, and call that good.  There is no morality in the rules themselves.   Is that what you are saying?

 Again, you seem to be arguing how we know what is moral and not whether or not morality is objective or subjective.   What makes you think morality is subjective?    Do you think that what is moral for one, can be immoral for another?   And I'll ask again, what in the subject is the basis for morality (is it just feelings or personal preference)?

I think asking what things *are* is ultimately unproductive. It is much better to ask what they *do*. Too much philosophy gets lost in pondering the nature of matter or of mind and constructing viewpoints that have little to do with the real world. In the real world, things are defined by how they interact. Electrons, for example, interact with phtoons in certain ways and with certain probabilities, etc. That *defines* an electron.

Morality is the collection of rules that we decide people *should* live by. This morality changes over time as we learn how to be more compassionate and how to be more fair. It is generally agreed that both of these are important aspects of morality and should be promoted. They are *human* rules and so change to abide by the needs of humans as our societies change. Some of the specifics that were 'good and useful' for primarily agricultural societies are no longer 'good and useful' for highly industrial societies (the rules on sexuality are a good example).

I see morality as subjective because it depends on the characteristics of humans and is not an aspect of the larger reality. For example, I would not expect a race of beings from a different star system to have the same moral sensitivities. Morality is not objective in the sense of being independent of observer. A non-human observer would likely have different moral views to ours.

The rules are NOT arbitrary though. The basic rules are determined by human nature and what sorts of rules promote human well being. Just like the question of whether injesting cyanide is bad for your health isn't socially determined, neither are some of the basic moral positions.

Society itself evolves. In societies, we have tried many, many bad ideas; and those societies that married themselves to them suffered for it, particularly when they overrode our 'moral sense' of innate understanding about things like fairness and reciprocity that even other social primates have. We don't 'cull the weak' because not only do we perceive it as unfair to kill people for things they can't help; it's a bad idea that doesn't actually promote our survival as a species. The key characteristic that's the basis of human survival is our ability to cooperate. Even ancient tribes found a use for the weak or old, finding a way to make those who could be perceived as useless, useful is part of our strength as a species. The tribe that kills off its old people as soon as they have trouble keeping up loses their wisdom. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up knows what to do when they run into a situation that hasn't come up since 50 years ago. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up has babysitters.

There's a reason why the 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'. As time goes on, we very slowly find better ways to order our societies for the benefit of both the society and the people in it. It's frustrating trial-and-error; but the ethics and morality we've arrived at today is better overall than what prevailed 3,000 years ago, or 200 years ago. Things that used to be considered fine are now considered reprehensible. And there are things considered fine today that will be considered reprehensible in 50 or 100 or 200 years. And those people in the future will be, to at least some degree, better off for it.

(October 4, 2018 at 5:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 4, 2018 at 4:51 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, morality is the rules we adopt to promote human well being. Right and wrong are words we use to drive the point home, nothing more. Those rules come from our evolutionary past: they are the rule that promote well being *in humans*. Bonobos or chimps or dogs may well have very different rules based on *their* evolutionary past.
I consider most philosophical discussion concerning 'what something is' to be seriously flawed. They tend to assume an outdated concept of ontology. It is much better to determine the epistemology since that has practical aspects.

You don't think that the nature of something determines how you handle it?

Let me put it this way. I consider almost all of metaphysics to be bunk. By putting out prejudices on our initial investigations, we stray from the path of wisdom. By assuming that the division into subjective and objective is necessary and useful, the discussion already gets warped. The same happens whenever 'necessary existence' or 'contingent existence' are phrases used. These are simply divisions that make it MORE difficult to figure out what is going on rather than being helpful.

Stand back and look around a bit *before* speculating about what is necessary or subjective and perhaps different divisions will be more natural and helpful.

---

(October 5, 2018 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Society itself evolves. In societies, we have tried many, many bad ideas; and those societies that married themselves to them suffered for it, particularly when they overrode our 'moral sense' of innate understanding about things like fairness and reciprocity that even other social primates have. We don't 'cull the weak' because not only do we perceive it as unfair to kill people for things they can't help; it's a bad idea that doesn't actually promote our survival as a species. The key characteristic that's the basis of human survival is our ability to cooperate. Even ancient tribes found a use for the weak or old, finding a way to make those who could be perceived as useless, useful is part of our strength as a species. The tribe that kills off its old people as soon as they have trouble keeping up loses their wisdom. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up knows what to do when they run into a situation that hasn't come up since 50 years ago. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up has babysitters.

There's a reason why the 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'. As time goes on, we very slowly find better ways to order our societies for the benefit of both the society and the people in it. It's frustrating trial-and-error; but the ethics and morality we've arrived at today is better overall  than what prevailed 3,000 years ago, or 200 years ago. Things that used to be considered fine are now considered reprehensible. And there are things considered fine today that will be considered reprehensible in 50 or 100 or 200 years. And those people in the future will be, to at least some degree, better off for it.

You said this much better than I was able to. very nice!

(October 5, 2018 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Society itself evolves. In societies, we have tried many, many bad ideas; and those societies that married themselves to them suffered for it, particularly when they overrode our 'moral sense' of innate understanding about things like fairness and reciprocity that even other social primates have. We don't 'cull the weak' because not only do we perceive it as unfair to kill people for things they can't help; it's a bad idea that doesn't actually promote our survival as a species. The key characteristic that's the basis of human survival is our ability to cooperate. Even ancient tribes found a use for the weak or old, finding a way to make those who could be perceived as useless, useful is part of our strength as a species. The tribe that kills off its old people as soon as they have trouble keeping up loses their wisdom. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up knows what to do when they run into a situation that hasn't come up since 50 years ago. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up has babysitters.

There's a reason why the 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'. As time goes on, we very slowly find better ways to order our societies for the benefit of both the society and the people in it. It's frustrating trial-and-error; but the ethics and morality we've arrived at today is better overall  than what prevailed 3,000 years ago, or 200 years ago. Things that used to be considered fine are now considered reprehensible. And there are things considered fine today that will be considered reprehensible in 50 or 100 or 200 years. And those people in the future will be, to at least some degree, better off for it.

I tend to agree.   However, this statement appeals to objective morality; in order to say that we have a better understanding in compared to a moral ideal.

(October 5, 2018 at 9:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Society itself evolves. In societies, we have tried many, many bad ideas; and those societies that married themselves to them suffered for it, particularly when they overrode our 'moral sense' of innate understanding about things like fairness and reciprocity that even other social primates have. We don't 'cull the weak' because not only do we perceive it as unfair to kill people for things they can't help; it's a bad idea that doesn't actually promote our survival as a species. The key characteristic that's the basis of human survival is our ability to cooperate. Even ancient tribes found a use for the weak or old, finding a way to make those who could be perceived as useless, useful is part of our strength as a species. The tribe that kills off its old people as soon as they have trouble keeping up loses their wisdom. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up knows what to do when they run into a situation that hasn't come up since 50 years ago. The tribe that finds a way to help them keep up has babysitters.

There's a reason why the 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'. As time goes on, we very slowly find better ways to order our societies for the benefit of both the society and the people in it. It's frustrating trial-and-error; but the ethics and morality we've arrived at today is better overall  than what prevailed 3,000 years ago, or 200 years ago. Things that used to be considered fine are now considered reprehensible. And there are things considered fine today that will be considered reprehensible in 50 or 100 or 200 years. And those people in the future will be, to at least some degree, better off for it.

I tend to agree.   However, this statement appeals to objective morality; in order to say that we have a better understanding in compared to a moral ideal.

No, really, it does not, except to point out that fairness and compassion are the basis of morality.

(October 5, 2018 at 8:19 am)polymath257 Wrote: I see morality as subjective because it depends on the characteristics of humans and is not an aspect of the larger reality.

So does everything we do.  Think of some thing we do you might consider objective.  Understand that your classification of morality as subjective on those grounds also reclassifies that thing.

Quote:For example, I would not expect a race of beings from a different star system to have the same moral sensitivities. Morality is not objective in the sense of being independent of observer. A non-human observer would likely have different moral views to ours.

That people are subjective beings does not necessitate that a moral system be meaningfully subjective.  If morality were objective...it would still be the case that a subjective being is utilizing a system capable of objective classifications.  Two different things, there, which can be simultaneously true.

Quote:The rules are NOT arbitrary though. The basic rules are determined by human nature and what sorts of rules promote human well being.

Is either subjective?  Is "human nature" decided by the opinion of some person?  Is "wellbeing" a matter of opinion.  If I decided to change my opinion about assault, would that change anything -about assault-? 

Quote:Just like the question of whether injesting cyanide is bad for your health isn't socially determined, neither are some of the basic moral positions.

In what sense, then, are they subjective...beyond the fact that a subjective agent is describing the positions?

(October 5, 2018 at 9:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I tend to agree.   However, this statement appeals to objective morality; in order to say that we have a better understanding in compared to a moral ideal.

Thank you. I have never claimed to be a moral subjectivist, I take human survival and thriving (and we need the rest of the planet to do well in order to have those things) as my basic moral axiom. That said, there's 'more than one way to skin a cat' and there may be more than one way to optimize human survival and thriving. So the moral ideal that I think we're 'arcing towards' might not be the only one that would work (and probably no ideal possibility is actually achievable in any case, there will always be a range of suboptimal choices), and that's not even taking into account what technology may be able to achieve (and what new moral conundrums it will introduce).

(October 5, 2018 at 9:30 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 9:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I tend to agree.   However, this statement appeals to objective morality; in order to say that we have a better understanding in compared to a moral ideal.

No, really, it does not, except to point out that fairness and compassion are the basis of morality.

It still appears that you don't understand the terms as used.... which is probably why you don't like them.  I do agree that that fairness and compassion are moral terms and guiding principles.  But that doesn't get you to one ought to be fair and compassionate.  It doesn't tell you that it is right or wrong.   Equating these terms to morality doesn't get you past the issues of the ontology of morality, it just shifts it a little.  And in the end, most people that we would consider sane, do not treat morality as if it is subjective.   Why do you think that is?