(March 16, 2021 at 1:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(March 16, 2021 at 12:34 am)Seax Wrote: That is the more conservative interpretation, but many take it to mean that we cannot derive morality from nature. I disagree with this on the grounds that morality is an evolved instinct and therefore a product of nature to begin with. I agree that we cannot take everything that is natural to be moral, but I don't know that anyone actually believes that. It would also be selfdefeating, because compassion & cruelty, life & death, extinction & survival, prosperity & catastrophe are all part of nature, so you need some other guide to tell you which of these things are moral & which aren't.

That's probably not a good reason to disagree with the thing that the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies don't say.  Even if we grant that our moral sense and moral agency are evolved traits - that won't make morality an evolved trait or natural product anymore than our sense of touch being an evolved trait makes a chair an evolved trait or a natural product.  

Quote:That's not what I meant. I mean that we cannot apply general principles of nature, like only the strongest survive, on a smaller scale because different species have evolved different survival strategies.

Naturalistic fallacy.  

Quote:The human strategy is a cooperative, social one.

Moralistic fallacy.

Chairs are natural products.

Not in the sense meaningful to moral discourse. Consider this.

A human being, a chair, and a moral proposition - can all be non natural...though each and every item is quite literally made of nature, instantiated within nature. What you're talking about when you say " a chair is a natural product"...is not what moral philosophy is talking about when it elaborates on natural and non natural products.

Beyond that, though, the disagreement wouldn't resolve the issue in your formulation. Contending that morality is an evolved instinct...therefore.....a product of nature- can only work if the thing before the therefore is true. Do you think that there might be some difference between morality, the field of play, the respect to which things are right or wrong, and our evolved moral sense or intuitions? Unpeeling the onion even further...suppose that a chair -was- a natural product, is it natural product because your evolved sense of touch makes it so?

(March 16, 2021 at 2:28 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not in the sense meaningful to moral discourse.  Consider this.

A human being, a chair, and a moral proposition - can all be non natural...though each and every item is quite literally made of nature, instantiated within nature.  What you're talking about when you say " a chair is a natural product"...is not what moral philosophy is talking about when it elaborates on natural and non natural products.

Beyond that, though, the disagreement wouldn't resolve the issue in your formulation.  Contending that morality is an evolved instinct...therefore.....a product of nature- can only work if the thing before the therefore is true.  Do you think that there might be some difference between morality, the field of play, the respect to which things are right or wrong, and our evolved moral sense or intuitions?  Unpeeling the onion even further...suppose that a chair -was- a natural product, is it  natural product because your evolved sense of touch makes it so?

Certain evolved moral instincts may be maladaptive under certain situations. Other than that, no.

That some evolved instincts may be maladaptive is a consequential position to take - but not what I'm asking about in the bolded portion.

I'm asking you if you think that there's a difference between an eye and the thing an eye sees.

(March 16, 2021 at 3:15 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That some evolved instincts may be maladaptive is a consequential position to take - but not what I'm asking about in the bolded portion.

I'm asking you if you think that there's a difference between an eye and the thing an eye sees.

What mean you? The only thing an eye actually sees is the light inside the eye, so I suppose not.

There's no difference between sight, and..say, an elephant?

(March 16, 2021 at 3:34 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's no difference between sight, and..say, an elephant?

But the eye can't actually perceive an elephant. If you are in a room with no light & an elephant, you will not see an elephant. The eye can only perceive the light that is on the inner side of the pupil. Is that light part of the eye? It is inside it.

Is the elephant inside the eye?

(March 16, 2021 at 3:54 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Is the elephant inside the eye?

The light, which is what your eye sees, not the actual matter itself, has to be on the inner side of the pupil for the elp to be seen. So what you are seeing is inside your eye, and a mere reflection of what is outside.

A mere reflection of what is outside is all that's required. You don't think that the elephant is in the eye, plainly.

Just as what we see with our evolved traits like sight may not be an evolved trait, and may not be a natural product, and may be a mere reflection of what is outside - our moral senses as evolved traits may apprehend things that are not evolved traits, which are not natural products, and may also be a mere reflection of those things outside.

You have serious issues on both sides of your therefore which no amount of trying to get me to pull teeth about elephants in your eyes could ever resolve. When I say that you're confused, it should be noted that I don't think that you're confused about your position - you believe things and know that you believe them. I'm certain that you are confused as to how to accurately and coherently express that.