(July 3, 2013 at 3:08 am)Inigo Wrote: No we're not and no it isn't.

Yes we are and yes it is.

Neener, neener, neener.

I've never been "instructed" to be moral. I've felt inclined to be moral(altruistic) because it makes me feel better about myself as a person

If you think something is "instructing" you to be nice, you better seek therapy before it starts "instructing" you to hurt people.

Rahul Wrote:I've never been "instructed" to be moral. I've felt inclined to be moral(altruistic) because it makes me feel better about myself as a person

Which, ironically, takes all the altruism away from your percieved altruistic nature.

(July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Rahul Wrote:I've never been "instructed" to be moral. I've felt inclined to be moral(altruistic) because it makes me feel better about myself as a person

Which, ironically, takes all the altruism away from your percieved altruistic nature.

Yeah. Well the definition of altruism is still being bickered about in a lot of quarters. Technically a fly landing in a spider web for a spider to eat is altruistic according to the most common definition.

I consider helping someone without receiving anything tangible in return to be altruistic.

I don't consider a "feeling" tangible in that sense.

@Inigo

I lost interest in this thread after you avoided my post somewhere at the beginning... but I can't help to point out a crucial mistake of yours. The common theme that I'm picking up on is that you claim that [objective] morals "instruct". Saying that something *is* wrong doesn't mean one *ought* not to do it. The former is merely a statement, an observation, an opinion while the latter is a command. Your job is to take us through the philosophical minefield to get from A to B:

• Action x is morally wrong
  
• Action x ought not to be performed
  

There is a huge void between the two which you have just been assuming to be bridged for the last 15 pages. Any moral ethics 101 professor would strongly disagree with you.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 10:56 am)Rahul Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Which, ironically, takes all the altruism away from your percieved altruistic nature.

Yeah. Well the definition of altruism is still being bickered about in a lot of quarters. Technically a fly landing in a spider web for a spider to eat is altruistic according to the most common definition.

I consider helping someone without receiving anything tangible in return to be altruistic.

I don't consider a "feeling" tangible in that sense.

Sounds like you're an indirect realist...

(July 3, 2013 at 11:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sounds like you're an indirect realist...

Excuse me while I go look up what that is.

...

Urhm. I guess? Don't really know. I never found philosophy all that interesting.

There are way too many other things that I do find interesting to bother too much with all that.

(July 3, 2013 at 11:14 am)Rahul Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 11:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sounds like you're an indirect realist...

Excuse me while I go look up what that is.

...

Urhm. I guess? Don't really know. I never found philosophy all that interesting.

There are way too many other things that I do find interesting to bother too much with all that.

Scratch that. My initial thought seems too abstract upon further reflection.

All I'll say is that "tangible" needs to be defined, because arguably, when you feel good about an altruistic action, those feel good chemicals in your brain are pretty damn *tangible* if you ask me.

(July 3, 2013 at 11:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Scratch that. My initial thought seems too abstract upon further reflection.

All I'll say is that "tangible" needs to be defined, because arguably, when you feel good about an altruistic action, those feel good chemicals in your brain are pretty damn *tangible* if you ask me.

Well I don't get some kind of emotional rush or anything.

I'm just a generally happy person and I would like to see most everyone else feel the same way. If I can do something to help someone out or make their day a little brighter, I'll usually do it.

(July 3, 2013 at 10:22 am)Rahul Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 3:08 am)Inigo Wrote: No we're not and no it isn't.

Yes we are and yes it is.

Neener, neener, neener.

I've never been "instructed" to be moral. I've felt inclined to be moral(altruistic) because it makes me feel better about myself as a person

If you think something is "instructing" you to be nice, you better seek therapy before it starts "instructing" you to hurt people.

Well, not everyone has a moral sense. If atheism is true that is as much as can be said for altruism. IF you like it - if you're into altruism - then great. But if you hate it, then, well, you have no reason to be altruistic. The impression that most of us have (but not you, it seems) is that there is more to altruism than this. It is right to cultivate altruism and to exercise it in certain circumstances, and we have reason to be altruistic even if we just aren't in the mood or couldn't care less about it. That's what's distinctive about morality.
But you don't have a moral sense, so you wouldn't know.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 11:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: @Inigo

I lost interest in this thread after you avoided my post somewhere at the beginning... but I can't help to point out a crucial mistake of yours. The common theme that I'm picking up on is that you claim that [objective] morals "instruct". Saying that something *is* wrong doesn't mean one *ought* not to do it. The former is merely a statement, an observation, an opinion while the latter is a command. Your job is to take us through the philosophical minefield to get from A to B:

• Action x is morally wrong
  
• Action x ought not to be performed
  

There is a huge void between the two which you have just been assuming to be bridged for the last 15 pages. Any moral ethics 101 professor would strongly disagree with you.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 10:56 am)Rahul Wrote: Yeah. Well the definition of altruism is still being bickered about in a lot of quarters. Technically a fly landing in a spider web for a spider to eat is altruistic according to the most common definition.

I consider helping someone without receiving anything tangible in return to be altruistic.

I don't consider a "feeling" tangible in that sense.

Sounds like you're an indirect realist...

Apologies for ignoring your post - I must have missed it somehow. My claim that morality instructs/favours/commands is a conceptual claim. It is just (in part) what I mean by 'morality'. So any attempt to analyse morality that identifies moral properties with things that cannot instruct is going to fail. It won't be an analysis of the concept of morality. Like I say, we have to make assumptions and that's one of mine. Everyone else makes it too: the normativity of morality is not in question, what is in question is how to explain it.

You point to Hume's 'is/ought' claim, namely that you cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is ironic as Hume is essentially making precisely the point I am making: morality tells you what to do. Descriptions don't. Telling you that a certain act is altruistic just tells you it is altruistic. It doesn't direct you - it isn't an instruction.
However, a description of an instruction - pointing out to someone that they are, so far as you can see, being instructed not to do something, is different. That is a description. And when we say that an act is 'wrong' we are describing: we are saying that the act has wrongness (that's a description). But what we are describing is the fact the act is one that we are instructed not to do.
A description of an instruction is not itself an instruction. But it draws attention to the fact there is an instruction. And that's what we're doing when we say that an act is wrong. We are drawing attention to the fact - or recognising - that there exists (or seems to exist) an instruction not to do this thing.

There is no need to get into a discussion of altruism. For the existence of altruism (of various kinds) is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what it would for altruism to have moral goodness. We don't just judge altruism to be altruism. We judge it to have moral goodness. It is that feature that I am wondering about. It is that feature that seems to require the existence of a god.

---

[quote='FallentoReason']Any moral ethics 101 professor would strongly disagree with you.[\quote]

Well, that's certainly not true! First, there is a huge debate over whether you can get an ought from an is. The matter isn't exactly settled! On my view to say that someone 'ought' (morally) to do something is to describe an instruction. It is not to actually instruct. When I say 'you ought to be altruistic to some degree' I am not, if I am using 'ought' in its moral sense (the word ought is multiply ambiguous, which doesn't help) I mean 'morality bids you not do that'. I am describing, not prescribing. But what I am describing is a prescription.

(July 3, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Inigo Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 10:22 am)Rahul Wrote: Yes we are and yes it is.

Neener, neener, neener.

I've never been "instructed" to be moral. I've felt inclined to be moral(altruistic) because it makes me feel better about myself as a person

If you think something is "instructing" you to be nice, you better seek therapy before it starts "instructing" you to hurt people.

Well, not everyone has a moral sense. If atheism is true that is as much as can be said for altruism. IF you like it - if you're into altruism - then great. But if you hate it, then, well, you have no reason to be altruistic.

Yeah, and those people are called sociopaths, because they lack at least a part of the moral module in their brain which gives off certain signals to your conscious mind when you think about the outcome of a specific act. If you will, the moral circuitry is actually 'instructing' you too be more likely to go for a certain outcome because picking the incorrect one will send the wrong signal, or the signal to think about the other outcome will not reveal itself at all. The moral agent is a part of the sub-conscious circuitry of the brain itself.

See this article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/29/sc...ty-center/
We are hardwired to think a certain way. Turning off certain portions of the brain literally causes people to lose their morality. Scary, but true.

And maybe it is just that we do not have the freedom to think in a non-moralistic way, at least most of us.

There is no one instructing us to think a certain way.

We feel the outcomes as wrong since our brain does effect our entire body as well. We are hardwired to think a certain way therefore our morality is hardwired as well.

(July 3, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Inigo Wrote: We don't just judge altruism to be altruism. We judge it to have moral goodness. It is that feature that I am wondering about.

We judge something to have moral goodness because we are hardwired to think that way.

Quote: What is in dispute is what it would for altruism to have moral goodness. We don't just judge altruism to be altruism. We judge it to have moral goodness.

When you say "we" who are you addressing in this statement, and do the people who you are addressing always see altruism as moral goodness no matter who it is directed at?

I don't always judge altruism to be moral goodness, there are some people who I think don't deserve as much concern or charity but who do get it, and I think it's totally wrong.