Person A: believes morality comes from the Bible, as the source of what is right and wrong.

Person B: subscribes to a secular moral philosophy, and believes right and wrong is determined by whether it benefits or harms overall wellbeing. 

Person C: Subscribes to an intuitionist type of view. He believes there's an objective moral reality, and that we don't discern right and wrong by a rational calculation, but more like we recognize a color, or light and darkness. Things that we perceive as part of the darkness are evil, things we see as part of the light are good. 

All three recognize that the holocaust is immoral. And not just immoral but objectively immoral. That the wrongness that they're seeing isn't their personal opinion, or an expression of their likes or dislikes, or even their societies opinions or likes and dislikes, but a truth. 

If we could do a brain scan, of how their minds came to recognize that the holocaust is immoral. Do you think that the pathways their mind took would look any different from each other? 

Do you think Person A's mind, started to think of biblical passages that indicate that the holocaust is immoral, before recognizing it as immoral? And person B's mind started to think of the overall impact of the holocaust on whether it benefits or harmed overall wellbeing, to determine that it was immoral? 

Or do you agree with me, that we'd likely see that their minds recognized it was wrong,  by the same underlying way. That the wrongness was intuitively perceived first, prior to applying there particular moral beliefs to it. That such justification took place after the fact, are post hoc.

Person C's view or morality, particularly it's objectiveness appears to be the most accurate representation of morality of the three.

At work.

Well.... the main problem would seem to be that each individuals neural pathways are unique. Like finger prints.

Yes certain areas of everyone's brains do similar/the same thing (Aft part of the brain does sight. Same ateas process sound) but the exact nerual pathways?

They're different and unique to each individual as the neurons grow and 'Wire themselves up' uniquely.

So, while all three people would probably have the same 'Cognitive' area lighting up. Each area will be a completely different tangle of neurons. With no pattern of neural connections being the same in any of the three people.

Cheers.

(September 11, 2019 at 1:26 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Person A: believes morality comes from the Bible, as the source of what is right and wrong.

Person B: subscribes to a secular moral philosophy, and believes right and wrong is determined by whether it benefits or harms overall wellbeing. 

Person C: Subscribes to an intuitionist type of view. He believes there's an objective moral reality, and that we don't discern right and wrong by a rational calculation, but more like we recognize a color, or light and darkness. Things that we perceive as part of the darkness are evil, things we see as part of the light are good. 

All three recognize that the holocaust is immoral. And not just immoral but objectively immoral. That the wrongness that they're seeing isn't their personal opinion, or an expression of their likes or dislikes, or even their societies opinions or likes and dislikes, but a truth. 

If we could do a brain scan, of how their minds came to recognize that the holocaust is immoral. Do you think that the pathways their mind took would look any different from each other? 

Do you think Person A's mind, started to think of biblical passages that indicate that the holocaust is immoral, before recognizing it as immoral? And person B's mind started to think of the overall impact of the holocaust on whether it benefits or harmed overall wellbeing, to determine that it was immoral? 

Or do you agree with me, that we'd likely see that their minds recognized it was wrong,  by the same underlying way. That the wrongness was intuitively perceived first, prior to applying there particular moral beliefs to it. That such justification took place after the fact, are post hoc.

Person C's view or morality, particularly it's objectiveness appears to be the most accurate representation of morality of the three.

I would say that out intuitiveness is not trustworthy.  I still believe person B would obtain the best morality if we can reason and think about actions and compare it to the standard of well being.  Our intuition may lead us to believe that lying is wrong in a situation where telling a lie may do the most good. I would also say that person B would not call it a truth because their standard is subjective, it may be a truth when compared to the standard.  I agree that we may all operate initially like person C but without questioning that morality how do we know it is moral?

Right and wrong are rarely, if ever, "intuitively" perceived. Decisions about right and wrong require learning and experience.

(September 11, 2019 at 6:30 pm)wyzas Wrote: Right and wrong are rarely, if ever, "intuitively" perceived. Decisions about right and wrong require learning and experience.

What learning and experience do I need to recognize that torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong, than just torturing innocent babies just for fun. What additional experience and learning do I need to recognize it’s wrong?

(September 11, 2019 at 6:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 11, 2019 at 6:30 pm)wyzas Wrote: Right and wrong are rarely, if ever, "intuitively" perceived. Decisions about right and wrong require learning and experience.

What learning and experience do I need to recognize that torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong, than just torturing innocent babies just for fun. What additional experience and learning do I need to recognize it’s wrong?

What if you were born and raised in a tribe that considered torturing it's enemy's babies was considered normal behavior? How would you know any different?

The correct response is you wouldn't.

(September 11, 2019 at 6:53 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(September 11, 2019 at 6:47 pm)Acrobat Wrote: What learning and experience do I need to recognize that torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong, than just torturing innocent babies just for fun. What additional experience and learning do I need to recognize it’s wrong?

What if you were born and raised in a tribe that considered torturing it's enemy's babies was considered normal behavior? How would you know any different?

The correct response is you wouldn't.

Such tribes generally do such acts based on false justifications, such as the children were curses etc.. To conceal wrongness of the act., and the innocence of the victim. Tribe member who recognize the lie, have recognized that such practices are morally wrong, and have opposed it as a result. Where did they learn that from? If the culture didn’t tell them it was wrong?

B and C aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't need to do deliberate calculations in my head to reach the position that torturing babies is wrong. but if you were asked to provide an elaborate explanation for what makes torturing babies, then you can't just say "it's because".

Of course, it's one thing to ask what makes X wrong and another thing to ask what makes one believe X is wrong.

C and b can be the same person.....next?

The have to ask, do you really want to argue against our well developed moral agencies?

If you do......ok, but good luck to you.

I -will- actually say “ just because”.............

(September 11, 2019 at 7:32 pm)Grandizer Wrote: B and C aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't need to do deliberate calculations in my head to reach the position that torturing babies is wrong. but if you were asked to provide an elaborate explanation for what makes torturing babies, then you can't just say "it's because".

Why not, why can’t I say it’s wrong because it’s dark? Like if someone asked why do you think the ball is yellow, with the response being that yellow is what I see, that’s why

What’s the purpose of the justification, if the perception is sufficient enough to recognize it was wrong?