A base of facilitating morality would be expected by evolutionary psychology.  That base has, for shits and giggles, been found and recorded.  All creatures with social structures and neurobiology meaningfully like our own have moral analogs such as taboo and exaltation.

Gazzaniga actually wrote a book about it, lol...and his most noted work is on the direct correlation between physiology and psychogeny and competence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gazzaniga

Acro's quote was mined, from a text arguing to the contrary of his point. The very next statements in the book that this quote is derived from, "Human"(2008) expound upon this.

Here's what I'm wondering...what trash website did Acro pull it from, and what was whatever shaman using it to say?

(January 20, 2019 at 5:27 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: So, if you accept Plato's bit of wisdom here, then you may want to rethink the idea that only theists can be moral realists. 

Atheists can recognize the Good as well as any believer can. Some things might even work in the atheist's favor in trying to recognize the Good, such as not being bewildered by dogma. An atheist can search for the Good armed with only a sincere heart and mind. At the very least, I will say that an atheist is at no disadvantage when trying to distinguish the good from the not good. At the very least, they are just as able to distinguish an objective morality as a believer.

An atheists is a person who lacks a belief in God.

If Plato conception of The Good, constitutes as a God, than you can’t be an atheist and subscribe to Plato’s conception of the Good. Plenty of others, some even prechristian have saw the Good as such, like Plotinus, and Proclus, treating is as synonymous with conception of the One, and early Christian thinkers who have done the same. But I do think you’re operating on a false understanding of Plato’s form of the Good, that perhaps leads you to think otherwise

Quote:Edit: Since you also seem confused about what an atheist might consider moral facts, here is an argument I've put forth here before (from a paper found in the disclosed link):

I think there seems to be a number of atheists, since perhaps Harris who tend to see themselves as moral realist, but do so by redefining moral realism, or without ever acknowledging the ontological assumptions implicit in such beliefs.

You seem to be equating morality with explanations, as if morality or a moral fact is merely something descriptive, like stealing is bad, because it has x negative consequences, but this is wrong. Something being morally bad or good is not merely descriptive, it’s also prescriptive. A moral fact, needs to be both descriptive and prescriptive, or else it’s not a moral fact, it might be fact about a measurable degree of pain, or negative consequences, but not a moral one. Because morality not only describes how things are, but how they ought to be, obligations and duties to serve it.

Hence the reason why your explanation argument fails.

In showing someone why something they’re doing is immoral, I am not just describing what they’re doing and it’s effects, but also that because it’s bad they have a real obligation to not do it, not to me, or to society, but to The Good itself.

---

(January 21, 2019 at 12:16 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: A base of facilitating morality would be expected by evolutionary psychology.  That base has, for shits and giggles, been found and recorded.  All creatures with social structures and neurobiology meaningfully like our own have moral analogs such as taboo and exaltation.

Gazzaniga actually wrote a book about it, lol...and his most noted work is on the direct correlation between physiology and psychogeny and competence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gazzaniga

Acro's quote was mined, from a text arguing to the contrary of his point. The very next statements in the book that this quote is derived from, "Human"(2008) expound upon this.

Here's what I'm wondering...what trash website did Acro pull it from, and what was whatever shaman using it to say?

I quoted it, to highlight the lack of a relationship between moral reasoning and pro active moral behavior, not other components and proactive moral behavior.

It’s from page 148, here’s a fuller quote:

“It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most recent studies, none has been found,62, 63 except in one study done on young adults, in which there was a small correlation.64 As one might predict based on what we have learned so far, moral behavior, as evi- denced by helping others, is more correlated with emotion and self- control. Interestingly, Sam and Pearl Oliner, professors at Humboldt State University and founding directors of the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute, studied moral exemplars by looking at Euro- pean rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust.65 Whereas 37 percent were empathically motivated (suffering module), 52 percent were primarily motivated by “expressing and strengthening their affiliations with their social groups” (coalition module), and only 11 percent were motivated by principled stands (rational thinking).”

---

(January 20, 2019 at 8:12 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 10:35 pm)Acrobat Wrote: No, he’s referring to the effort to see The Good. And by this he doesn’t mean, that it takes such effort to see what’s right, but  the ultimate root, or source of such perception. Our perception of what’s right, is like seeing light from the sun, but not the sun itself, it takes considerable effort to see the sun.

“. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms.”

Non-natural realism.  That's usually where I start with realism no matter who's asking.  I'll even add the proviso that it doesn't always take great effort.  I arrange it in the reverse, however.  Let's you and I go watch the gang beating of a small child.  I wager that I won't need to explain anything at all.  The force of the observation will signify the thing we call "The Bad".  If we know "The Bad" - that which those terms signify, can see and observe and intuitively recognize it, then...by extension, we can understand the good (I'd make a second wager that the good and the bad, at least in archetypal forms, are equally recognizable). We can point at either representative and say "this, this is what I mean when I say x, do you understand?" - and the answer will be affirmative.

Again your talking about the light from the sun not the sun itself.

Confusing a concept relating to the ontology of Good, with epistemoloucal views.

It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong. A subjectivist might say it’s rooted in our own personal al feelings and opinions, like the our taste in food, or movies, a relativist might say it’s rooted in the collective opinions of our particular society and culture. While Plato would say its all ultimately rooted in The Good.

(January 21, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 5:27 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: So, if you accept Plato's bit of wisdom here, then you may want to rethink the idea that only theists can be moral realists. 

Atheists can recognize the Good as well as any believer can. Some things might even work in the atheist's favor in trying to recognize the Good, such as not being bewildered by dogma. An atheist can search for the Good armed with only a sincere heart and mind. At the very least, I will say that an atheist is at no disadvantage when trying to distinguish the good from the not good. At the very least, they are just as able to distinguish an objective morality as a believer.

An atheists is a person who lacks a belief in God.

If Plato conception of The Good, constitutes as a God, than you can’t be an atheist and subscribe to Plato’s conception of the Good.  Plenty of others, some even prechristian have saw the Good as such, like Plotinus, and Proclus, treating is as synonymous with conception of the One, and early Christian thinkers who have done the same. But I do think you’re operating on a false understanding of Plato’s form of the Good, that perhaps leads you to think otherwise  

Quote:Edit: Since you also seem confused about what an atheist might consider moral facts, here is an argument I've put forth here before (from a paper found in the disclosed link):

I think there seems to be a number of atheists, since perhaps Harris who tend to see themselves as moral realist, but do so by redefining moral realism, or without ever acknowledging the ontological assumptions implicit in such beliefs.

You seem to be equating morality with explanations, as if morality or a moral fact is merely something descriptive, like stealing is bad, because it has x negative consequences, but this is wrong. Something being morally bad or good is not merely descriptive, it’s also prescriptive. A moral fact, needs to be both descriptive  and prescriptive, or else it’s not a moral fact, it might be fact about a measurable degree of pain, or negative consequences, but not a moral one. Because morality not only describes how things are, but how they ought to be, obligations and duties to serve it.

Hence the reason why your explanation argument fails.

In showing someone why something they’re doing is immoral, I am not just describing what they’re doing and it’s effects, but  also that because it’s bad they have a real obligation to not do it, not to me, or to society, but to The Good itself.

---

(January 21, 2019 at 12:16 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: A base of facilitating morality would be expected by evolutionary psychology.  That base has, for shits and giggles, been found and recorded.  All creatures with social structures and neurobiology meaningfully like our own have moral analogs such as taboo and exaltation.

Gazzaniga actually wrote a book about it, lol...and his most noted work is on the direct correlation between physiology and psychogeny and competence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gazzaniga

Acro's quote was mined, from a text arguing to the contrary of his point. The very next statements in the book that this quote is derived from, "Human"(2008) expound upon this.

Here's what I'm wondering...what trash website did Acro pull it from, and what was whatever shaman using it to say?

I quoted it, to highlight the lack of a relationship between moral reasoning and pro active moral behavior, not other components and proactive moral behavior.

It’s from page 148, here’s a fuller quote:

“It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most recent studies, none has been found,62, 63 except in one study done on young adults, in which there was a small correlation.64 As one might predict based on what we have learned so far, moral behavior, as evi- denced by helping others, is more correlated with emotion and self- control. Interestingly, Sam and Pearl Oliner, professors at Humboldt State University and founding directors of the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute, studied moral exemplars by looking at Euro- pean rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust.65 Whereas 37 percent were empathically motivated (suffering module), 52 percent were primarily motivated by “expressing and strengthening their affiliations with their social groups” (coalition module), and only 11 percent were motivated by principled stands (rational thinking).”

---

(January 20, 2019 at 8:12 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Non-natural realism.  That's usually where I start with realism no matter who's asking.  I'll even add the proviso that it doesn't always take great effort.  I arrange it in the reverse, however.  Let's you and I go watch the gang beating of a small child.  I wager that I won't need to explain anything at all.  The force of the observation will signify the thing we call "The Bad".  If we know "The Bad" - that which those terms signify, can see and observe and intuitively recognize it, then...by extension, we can understand the good (I'd make a second wager that the good and the bad, at least in archetypal forms, are equally recognizable).  We can point at either representative and say "this, this is what I mean when I say x, do you understand?" - and the answer will be affirmative.

Again your talking about the light from the sun not the sun itself.

Confusing a concept relating to the ontology of Good, with epistemoloucal views.

It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong. A subjectivist might say it’s rooted in our own personal al feelings and opinions, like the our taste in food, or movies, a relativist might say it’s rooted in the collective opinions of our particular society and culture. While Plato would say its all ultimately rooted in The Good.

Plato didn't invent morality either. 

Quote:Quote Acrobat, "It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong."

Nature, evolution, not Superman vs Lex Luther, not Yoda vs Darth Vader, not God vs Satan.

I do not need any claim of the super natural to have empathy for others, or to figure out that if I don't want to be physically harmed, or have my shit stolen, maybe it's not a good idea to do that to others.

I am sorry someone sold you the idea that magic is the root cause of human behaviors, good or bad, but there is nothing magic, and no super natural cognition needed to explain why humans do good or bad.

(January 22, 2019 at 9:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Plato didn't invent morality either. 

No one said he did.

Quote:

Quote:Quote Acrobat, "It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong."

Nature, evolution, not Superman vs Lex Luther, not Yoda vs Darth Vader, not God vs Satan.

[/quote]

Evolution underlies the various mechanical components, of all our behaviors and inclinations, including those underlying immoral behavior, such scapegoating, greed, selfishness, delusions, etc....

Morality while relying on some of these components, is also a belief system, even if vaguely formed. It's beliefs in moral obligations and duties. My evolutionary sourced feeling and urges, might lead me to steal your wallet, but it's my moral belief, that define it as wrong, as something I ought not to do, not evolution, which at best is series of sensations governing our behaviors, not reducible to beliefs themselves.

Quote:I do not need any claim of the super natural to have empathy for others, or to figure out that if I don't want to be physically harmed, or have my shit stolen, maybe it's not a good idea to do that to others.

Or in other words, "I don't like the feeling of being harmed, I also don't like the feeling of others being harmed either, as a result of my empathy." In such statements you're just expressing to me your personal feelings, and not a moral claim at all. A belief that empathy, compassion is authoritative, as placing obligation on not just your behavior, but the behaviors of others, might be. Love becomes God like.

Quote:I am sorry someone sold you the idea that magic is the root cause of human behaviors, good or bad, but there is nothing magic, and no super natural cognition needed to explain why humans do good or bad.

I'm sorry you spend most of your post strawmanning people, and attributing to them beliefs they don't hold. I don't believe magic is the root cause of human behaviors, good or bad, I don't believe in magic, I don't even know what supernatural cognition means, for you to suggest that I believe it either.

Quote:Quote Acrobat..... "Or in other words, "I don't like the feeling of being harmed, I also don't like the feeling of others being harmed either, as a result of my empathy." In such statements you're just expressing to me your personal feelings, and not a moral claim at all. A belief that empathy, compassion is authoritative, as placing obligation on not just your behavior, but the behaviors of others, might be. Love becomes God like. 

No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

"God like" is the same thing as....

"Yoda like"

As 

"Harry Potter like"

As 

"Superman like"

Now do not use the word "authoritative" if you are going to cling to old mythology, because the "authorities" that ruled back then were kings, and kings are dictators, rulers not voted into office, rulers whom don't need your consent, and rulers that cannot be voted out of their positions.

The holy writings of antiquity reflect the age of kings, and have nothing to do one bit with our modern concept of "authority" by consent of the governed.

(January 22, 2019 at 11:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

You appealed to empathy, as evolutionary component of your moral views.

And yes empathy is your personal feelings, even though others also have similar personal feelings.

Several people might share similar empathetic feelings and sensations when observing certain phenomena, like an innocent person being harmed.

(January 21, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Again your talking about the light from the sun not the sun itself.

Confusing a concept relating to the ontology of Good, with epistemoloucal views.

You have no idea what you're talking about..lol, do you?  Carry on.

Quote:It’s not about what’s right and wrong, as much as it is about what ultimately the root of right and wrong. A subjectivist might say it’s rooted in our own personal al feelings and opinions, like the our taste in food, or movies, a relativist might say it’s rooted in the collective opinions of our particular society and culture. While Plato would say its all ultimately rooted in The Good.

-and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe. Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

(January 22, 2019 at 11:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe.  Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

No a moral realist, believes moral facts and moral values exist and "that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts." Or in other words a realist, believes in an objective moral reality, and not in morality as a human construct as subjectivist and relativist positions might convey.


This shouldn't be conflated with a moral subjectivist, who might consider certain garden variety facts, such as negative consequences as informing their moral judgements. Just because certain facts might inform your moral opinion, doesn't make you a moral realist.

(January 22, 2019 at 12:05 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 11:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and a realist maintains that it is rooted in facts that we can observe.  Gee, I sure am glad we cleared that up.......

No a moral realist, believes moral facts and moral values exist and "that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts." Or in other words a realist, believes in an objective moral reality, and not in morality as a human construct as subjectivist and relativist positions might convey.

What part of this do you think is arguing with me?

Quote:This shouldn't be conflated with a moral subjectivist, who might consider certain garden variety facts, such as negative consequences as informing their moral judgements. Just because certain facts might inform your moral opinion, doesn't make you a moral realist.

I thought we already cleared up the little known fact that moral realists and moral subjectivists were different things, lol?

Was there some question you had about non-natural moral realism, or some particular objection to the claim it makes....or no? That there are objective facts of good and bad...that these facts are not, themselves, natural.

(January 22, 2019 at 11:29 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 11:06 am)Brian37 Wrote: No not my personal feelings at all. Other species form groups too. Other species care for other individuals within their groups too. Evolution explains the behavior of life, not old books of mythology.

You appealed to empathy, as evolutionary component of your moral views.

And yes empathy is your personal feelings, even though others also have similar personal feelings.

Several people might share similar  empathetic feelings and sensations when observing certain phenomena, like an innocent person being harmed.

No I did not claim empathy was a moral view, I simply said it is a product of evolution. Cruelty is also a product of evolution. It is still up to humanity how we interact with each other. 

Tornados are also natural, that does not mean I want one flattening my house or killing me. 

All I am saying is nature is nature, be it constructive or destructive, including human behavior. 

If you can accept that a mother elephant or lioness will protect their young, while other rivals or predators will kill their young, all I am saying is BOTH are products of evolution.

I really do not care if you want to claim Buddha or Vishnu or Allah or Venus or Apollo are where human morality come from. I say most humans ARE GOOD. I simply disagree as to where humans think our behaviors, good or bad are coming from.

---

How is it this cat, whom cant read the Koran or Bible or Torah figured out the kid was in danger? Religious people would say "my diety did it", or "miracle". I'd say that the cat was merely defending a source of something familiar to it that gave it mutual benefit of comfort, food AND LOVE.





And these Elephants also cant read the bible or koran or Hindu Baghavad Gita. But still managed to save a calf.