Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[Anomalocaris]

Let's ask ourselves what morality is at its most basic - it is a code of conduct. It is a guide as to how a person should act, what he should do and what he should not do.

I might argue that a code of conduct is already a evolved response to morality at its most basic. I would argue morality at its most basic is an semi-instinctive, semi-taught perception that if one were to do certain thing, it would lead in some vaguely defined way to something bad happening to oneself.

Since we are all born of more or less similar genetic material, most of us probably respond in some grossly similar way to action with the same perceived effect on us. This allows some pragmatic rules to be conecived and adapted that would maximize individual's odds of prospering within his social network. I suspect "this will down like a lead balloon with a whole bunch of people from whom I might need favors" was the original basis of morality.

Now, an objective and well-reasoned morality would also need to be logical and rational, i.e. it cannot have some parts of it contradicting others. Based on these facts, we can figure out some parts of that objective moral code.

You can always caveat each arbitrary part of any morality such that it
would never explicit conflict with any other part. I suspect this pragmatic caveatinbg is necessary in any practical system of morality that could survive against competing systems of morality.

For example, a system of consistent morality that consistently forbids use of war to pursue desired goals will probably not last indefinitely against an otherwise comparable system that says "but war is permissible if it will get you want you want".

First of all, a person cannot act unless he is alive and free to act. These are the preconditions for morality and since it would not be logically consistent unless it complemented its own preconditions, objective morality must support both life and liberty.

Am I missing the part that specify what is meant by "objective"?

[genkaus]

I would agree, which is precisely the reason I'm always looking for one of those facts when these sorts of discussions begin. On the other hand, the morality we have doesn't seem to be based on facts (nor does it seem to need to be based on facts for it to be operable). What with this hit-or-miss morality being the only one we've ever seen, I'm the kind of person that requires a little more in the way of "hey maybe, if and if and if". But I know we're just brainstorming it here, and that you haven't claimed to have found any of these moral facts definitively. So no worries on that count.

No, our current morality is not based on facts, but still hits some of the same points as objective morality.

Well now wait a minute, maybe I was wrong above. You do have an idea as to where we might look, is this as far as you have taken it, or have you isolated a moral fact?

Some of them. See the premises given below.

Agreed, a stickler might ask you if you have ever experienced a thought that did not arise from your mind, but we'd be splitting hairs at that point.

A stickler might answer that some of the thoughts may be borrowed form other minds. But that is irrelevant.

A minor point of contention here, reality may not be able to be anything but logical, but this does not mean that what we currently perceive as logical is the end all be all, and our large collection of logical fallacies attests to our ability to get the whole logic bit wrong. Again, it would be a case of "so far as we know". I don't have a problem with this, but again, keep in mind that you and I aren't the only ones in this discussion and such a thing might fly completely unnoticed by Mystic, for example, who asserts a universal unchanging and absolute something or other of morality.

Ofcourse it'd be contingent upon "as far as we know". Do you know of any knowledge that is not?

Whoa there, not because you say so Genk. We have every reason to believe that many of our "moral considerations" weren't the product of some well reasoned or well considered process. I concede that these things would not be a part of what constitutes morality to you, but this ad hoc morality does exist whilst yours is still only hypothetical. We don't judge them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't. That's classic is-ought, or am I mistaken? Not that our ad hoc morality isn't in the same boat, mind you.

No, its not so because I say so, it is so because that is how we define a moral agent. A being which cannot consider its actions cannot be a moral agent. Whether or not "moral considerations" are a product of reasoned or considered process or not is irrelevant, since it is not the process that requires consideration but the actions of the agent.

I'm not sure that the fingerprints analogy is a very good one, fingerprints are material, demonstrable, etc.... and we're talking perceptions of what does or does not constitute "morality".

Notice that I talked about the pattern of fingerprints, not the fingerprints themselves. Any pattern is a mental construct, albeit one based on objective and demonstrable facts.

This is the part I love. I like the first one, however, is morality a guide or is it merely the sum total of how we do act? Judging from existent moralities the lines seem blurry, and this is only my opinion.

According to the current definition of morality, it is a guide.

A moral agent could also be absolutely dead and avoid coming into conflict with this code as often as a living moral agent -that's just an amusing thing that comes to mind, not really any sort of criticism.

Amusing - but incorrect. A dead moral agent is a contradiction.

So, in the business of establishing these as moral facts aren't you going to be haunted by the same thing that haunted you the last time we invoked moral agents, and the conditions for being classified as a moral agent? Wouldn't those have to be definitively shown?

Yes, they would.

We can't be ad hoc rationalizers, if this proclamation is to be all-encompassing, can we? I can't say that I find too much in the way of issues with where this is going, once we concede that there is possibly such a morality, that there are possibly moral agents, the third seems to come out of left field but the second would follow by definition. Thing is, and I think I've found a way to rephrase that question above, are we entirely certain that we aren't working backwards on this, we know what we want to assert, and so we propose a definition that would allow us to do so?

Given that I started with the definitions - of morality and moral agents - I can say pretty confidently that is not the case.

---

I might argue that a code of conduct is already a evolved response to morality at its most basic. I would argue morality at its most basic is an semi-instinctive, semi-taught perception that if one were to do certain thing, it would lead in some vaguely defined way to something bad happening to oneself.

Since we are all born of more or less similar genetic material, most of us probably respond in some grossly similar way to action with the same perceived effect on us. This allows some pragmatic rules to be conecived and adapted that would maximize individual's odds of prospering within his social network. I suspect "this will down like a lead balloon with a whole bunch of people from whom I might need favors" was the original basis of morality.

I'd disagree, and so would the encyclopedia:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

You can always caveat each arbitrary part of any morality such that it
would never explicit conflict with any other part. I suspect this pragmatic caveatinbg is necessary in any practical system of morality that could survive against competing systems of morality.

For example, a system of consistent morality that consistently forbids use of war to pursue desired goals will probably not last indefinitely against an otherwise comparable system that says "but war is permissible if it will get you want you want".

In case of objective morality, any such caveats themselves would have to be reasoned and shown to be logical. You ignore the fact that these caveats too must be judged on their merits and hence cannot be arbitrarily chosen.

Am I missing the part that specify what is meant by "objective"?

Are you? Do you not consider the stated precondition to be an objective fact?

[Angrboda]

I might argue that a code of conduct is already a evolved response to morality at its most basic. I would argue morality at its most basic is an semi-instinctive, semi-taught perception that if one were to do certain thing, it would lead in some vaguely defined way to something bad happening to oneself.

Since we are all born of more or less similar genetic material, most of us probably respond in some grossly similar way to action with the same perceived effect on us. This allows some pragmatic rules to be conecived and adapted that would maximize individual's odds of prospering within his social network. I suspect "this will down like a lead balloon with a whole bunch of people from whom I might need favors" was the original basis of morality.

I'd disagree, and so would the encyclopedia:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

You know Genk, if you cite a definition that is not inclusive, as if it were inclusive, someone like me might come along and accuse you of cherry-picking, which is what you did. The SEP says that it can be used in either of those two senses, not that those are the only senses in which it can be used. (Did you even bother to read the rest of the article? I rather doubt it.) Moreover, citing a specialized encyclopedia like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as if it were a general encyclopedia is pretty underhanded too. You must be losing the argument to resort to such tactics. For Christ's sake, 'argument by dictionary'? Have you lost your ever loving mind?

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

Where's the damn "negative kudo" button?

[genkaus]

You know Genk, if you cite a definition that is not inclusive, as if it were inclusive, someone like me might come along and accuse you of cherry-picking, which is what you did. The SEP says that it can be used in either of those two senses, not that those are the only senses in which it can be used. (Did you even bother to read the rest of the article? I rather doubt it.) Moreover, citing a specialized encyclopedia like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as if it were a general encyclopedia is pretty underhanded too. You must be losing the argument to resort to such tactics. For Christ's sake, 'argument by dictionary'? Have you lost your ever loving mind?

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

Where's the damn "negative kudo" button?

I specifically did not use the wikipedia definition because it, like most of the dictionaries, leads to circular reasoning.

Consider the definition you gave for morality - "Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)."

Now look up "good" under in the same source - relevant page found under "Good and Evil". That is defined as "In religion, ethics, and philosophy, the dichotomy "good and evil" refers to the location on a linear spectrum of objects, desires, or behaviors, the good direction being morally positive, and the evil direction morally negative."

The same issue comes up with most of the dictionaries. Morality is often defined as principles (concept/code) regarding good and bad (right and wrong), and the definition of good (or right) is given with respect to morality.

The generic meaning of good (or right) without the context of morality or ethics is as follows

1. Something is considered "good" if it furthers the intended purpose. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore a sharp knife is a good knife. Similarly, the purpose of a student is to learn, therefore a student who gets good grades (a measure of how much he has learned), is a good student. Similarly, a moral agent would be considered good, if he adheres to the principles of a given morality (thereby moving towards the goals of that morality).

2. Something is considered "right" if it conforms to a set of principles or standards. For example, 4 is the "right" answer to 2+2 =?, because the answer follows the principles of mathematics. Similarly, if an action corresponds to the principles laid out in morality, it'd be considered morally right.

This leads me to the conclusion that it is good and right that must be defined with respect to morality and the definition of morality should be independent of it. Further, since this is a philosophical discussion, I consider citing a philosophical encyclopedia to be reasonable. If you can find a definition of morality that does not rely on circular meaning, I'd be glad to find out.

[Whateverist]

I was going to ask a question here but decided it might deserve its own thread. http://atheistforums.org/thread-13344.html

[Angrboda]

Well, that's fine, Tex, except that your definition falls apart just as easily, and it still doesn't excuse the misleading way you used it, nor that you were attempting to settle a philosophical question by appeal to usage, which is a thinly disguised appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.

Now if you want to have an in-depth discussion about the Munchhausen Trilemma, well, I say, "Bring it."

[genkaus]

Well, that's fine, Tex, except that your definition falls apart just as easily,

How does it fall apart?

and it still doesn't excuse the misleading way you used it,

How is it misleading?

nor that you were attempting to settle a philosophical question by appeal to usage, which is a thinly disguised appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.

The definition of the world "morality" is not a philosophical question, it is a linguistic one. And use of language is one of the exceptions where appeal to popularity is not a fallacy.

Now if you want to have an in-depth discussion about the Munchhausen Trilemma, well, I say, "Bring it."

I'd never heard if the term before, but a cursory reading leads me to state that I'm one of those who commonly accepts the "axiomatic" horn.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, our current morality is not based on facts, but still hits some of the same points as objective morality.

So you say, but what would those points be, and how would you know that there is convergence until you have established that objective morality exists? I'm not asking you whether or not objective morality -as you have defined it- hits on similar points, because that can be accomplished by anyone willing to define anything.

A stickler might answer that some of the thoughts may be borrowed form other minds. But that is irrelevant.

So long as we can rule out that these concepts were "tainted" by the minds of those individuals, that they were truly objective, agreed. "Objective" so long as we are referencing human beings and some part of their nature or universal experience will always leave the door open to the possibility of anthropic reasoning, and ergo bias.

Ofcourse it'd be contingent upon "as far as we know". Do you know of any knowledge that is not?

No, of course not, but there are others in the thread that insist upon something that goes a great deal farther than "as far as we know". Me and provisional certitude are right as rain.

No, its not so because I say so, it is so because that is how we define a moral agent. A being which cannot consider its actions cannot be a moral agent. Whether or not "moral considerations" are a product of reasoned or considered process or not is irrelevant, since it is not the process that requires consideration but the actions of the agent.

I'm going to have to disagree, it's pretty damned relevant if the process itself is not reasoned or considered Genk. We would then not be moral agents, would we? You have defined us as such, and defined morality as such, but you are insisting upon reality and logic and facts, so definitions are insufficient. You need substance to pull this rabbit out of this hat. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to see you show that we actually are such agents. If we are not, then even if an objective morality existed, we would be incapable of utilizing it, even as you have defined it.

Notice that I talked about the pattern of fingerprints, not the fingerprints themselves. Any pattern is a mental construct, albeit one based on objective and demonstrable facts.

Right, demonstrable facts...so why do i keep getting definitions and tautologies when I ask questions about this?

According to the current definition of morality, it is a guide.

Your current definition or someone else's current definition and how have we determined that any current definition is factually accurate with regards to this morality in the first place?

Amusing - but incorrect. A dead moral agent is a contradiction.

But their not violating the moral code isn't (simply because they can't, since they can't act), speaking of contradictions, a moral agent that could not engage in a reasoned or considered process with regards to morality would also be contradictory, by your definition, wouldn't it?

Given that I started with the definitions - of morality and moral agents - I can say pretty confidently that is not the case.

That what is not the case, I'm assuming that you mean that you aren't working backwards? Correct?

[genkaus]

So you say, but what would those points be, and how would you know that there is convergence until you have established that objective morality exists? I'm not asking you whether or not objective morality -as you have defined it- hits on similar points, because that can be accomplished by anyone willing to define anything.

I think I have established that objective morality doesn't exist - atleast not completely. Some of the moral principles we currently accept do, in fact, have an objective basis. It is only to that extent that objective morality exists - or rather has been figured out. There is a lot of area where work is to be done.

So long as we can rule out that these concepts were "tainted" by the minds of those individuals, that they were truly objective, agreed. "Objective" so long as we are referencing human beings and some part of their nature or universal experience will always leave the door open to the possibility of anthropic reasoning, and ergo bias.

As long as we are referencing to facts regarding human beings, it'd be objective and not biased. It needs to be recognized that that morality would be applicable only to human beings. It can be accused of bias if it happens to be based on human facts and is applied to another category of beings.

I'm going to have to disagree, it's pretty damned relevant if the process itself is not reasoned or considered Genk. We would then not be moral agents, would we? You have defined us as such, and defined morality as such, but you are insisting upon reality and logic and facts, so definitions are insufficient. You need substance to pull this rabbit out of this hat. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to see you show that we actually are such agents. If we are not, then even if an objective morality existed, we would be incapable of utilizing it, even as you have defined it.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that one cannot be considered a moral agent unless they consider or reason the very process that gave rise to their morality? You are not being very clear here.

Right, demonstrable facts...so why do i keep getting definitions and tautologies when I ask questions about this?

Because they demonstrate the relation between the fact in question and the concept referring to it.

Your current definition or someone else's current definition and how have we determined that any current definition is factually accurate with regards to this morality in the first place?

Your question makes no sense. The word "morality" is simply a tag given to the concept of "a guide on how one should act". As corollary, that concept is the definition of the word. That is a fact because we have made it a fact. In future, if the tag is changed to "ethica", it wouldn't change the concept behind it.

But their not violating the moral code isn't (simply because they can't, since they can't act).

Whether or not they violate the moral code is irrelevant since they are not moral agents to begin with.

Speaking of contradictions, a moral agent that could not engage in a reasoned or considered process with regards to morality would also be contradictory, by your definition, wouldn't it?

What do you mean by "engage in reasoned or considered process"? What process? Are you referring to "actions", as in those who cannot engage in "reasoned or considered actions"? If so, then yes, that would be contradictory too and those agents would not be moral agents.

That what is not the case, I'm assuming that you mean that you aren't working backwards? Correct?

Correct, I am not working backwards.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I have established that objective morality doesn't exist - atleast not completely. Some of the moral principles we currently accept do, in fact, have an objective basis. It is only to that extent that objective morality exists - or rather has been figured out. There is a lot of area where work is to be done.

I'm unclear as to which moral principles (that do currently exist) have an objective basis Genk.

As long as we are referencing to facts regarding human beings, it'd be objective and not biased. It needs to be recognized that that morality would be applicable only to human beings. It can be accused of bias if it happens to be based on human facts and is applied to another category of beings.

Sounds good to me, that would eliminate any rumblings about a universal morality that applied to all.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that one cannot be considered a moral agent unless they consider or reason the very process that gave rise to their morality? You are not being very clear here.

You stated that a moral agent must be alive free to act in accordance to...(paraphrasing). It's fairly relevant if we are not, in fact, free to do this, isn't it?

Because they demonstrate the relation between the fact in question and the concept referring to it.

What fact in question Genk...

Your question makes no sense. The word "morality" is simply a tag given to the concept of "a guide on how one should act". As corollary, that concept is the definition of the word. That is a fact because we have made it a fact. In future, if the tag is changed to "ethica", it wouldn't change the concept behind it.

I don't disagree, it is just a tag given to a concept, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the entire issue confused does it? Our giving something a tag or a definition is no guarantee of accuracy with regards to that tag or definition once you invoke facts, reality, etc. You know, the world beyond the definitions or tags we give to things?

Whether or not they violate the moral code is irrelevant since they are not moral agents to begin with.

Because they are not -free to act- or -capable of acting in a manner in agreement with- or -alive-...but are we? Must all of these conditions be met, some of them, one of them?

What do you mean by "engage in reasoned or considered process"? What process? Are you referring to "actions", as in those who cannot engage in "reasoned or considered actions"? If so, then yes, that would be contradictory too and those agents would not be moral agents.

Then this would be one hell of a hurdle for you, since you'd have to establish that any of us are capable of this in reality (and not just by offering favorable definitions, axioms, or assertions). My point of contention here isn't so much as whether or not an objective morality exists (I did mention awhile back that I liked your "it may but we don't have it yet" argument). Its that even by this particular notion of morality that you are offering we have to just swallow quite a bit without much in the way of elaboration. If, for example, a moral agent must be free to act in accordance to this moral code, and this moral code must somehow be grounded in demonstrable facts about the nature of this moral agent (namely, in this conversation, ourselves) - if I am not, in actuality, free to act in accordance to this moral code...then this moral code is not grounded in my nature, in addition to my not being a moral agent in the first place.

---

I think I have established that objective morality doesn't exist - atleast not completely. Some of the moral principles we currently accept do, in fact, have an objective basis. It is only to that extent that objective morality exists - or rather has been figured out. There is a lot of area where work is to be done.

I'm unclear as to which moral principles (that do currently exist) have an objective basis Genk.

As long as we are referencing to facts regarding human beings, it'd be objective and not biased. It needs to be recognized that that morality would be applicable only to human beings. It can be accused of bias if it happens to be based on human facts and is applied to another category of beings.

Sounds good to me, that would eliminate any rumblings about a universal morality that applied to all.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that one cannot be considered a moral agent unless they consider or reason the very process that gave rise to their morality? You are not being very clear here.

You stated that a moral agent must be alive and free to act in accordance to...(paraphrasing). It's fairly relevant if we are not, in fact, free to do this, isn't it?

Because they demonstrate the relation between the fact in question and the concept referring to it.

What fact in question Genk...

Your question makes no sense. The word "morality" is simply a tag given to the concept of "a guide on how one should act". As corollary, that concept is the definition of the word. That is a fact because we have made it a fact. In future, if the tag is changed to "ethica", it wouldn't change the concept behind it.

I don't disagree, it is just a tag given to a concept, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the entire issue confused does it? Our giving something a tag or a definition is no guarantee of accuracy with regards to that tag or definition once you invoke facts, reality, etc. You know, the world beyond the definitions or tags we give to things?

Whether or not they violate the moral code is irrelevant since they are not moral agents to begin with.

Because they are not "free to act" or "capable of acting in a manner in agreement with"...but are we?

What do you mean by "engage in reasoned or considered process"? What process? Are you referring to "actions", as in those who cannot engage in "reasoned or considered actions"? If so, then yes, that would be contradictory too and those agents would not be moral agents.

Then this would be one hell of a hurdle for you, since you'd have to establish that any of us are capable of this in reality (and not just by offering favorable definitions, axioms, or assertions). My point of contention here isn't so much as whether or not an objective morality exists (I did mention awhile back that I liked your "it may but we don't have it yet" argument). Its that even by this particular notion of morality that you are offering we have to just swallow quite a bit without much in the way of elaboration. If, for example, A moral agent must be free to act in accordance to this moral code, and this moral code must somehow be grounded in demonstrable facts about human nature and reality - then if I am not, in actuality, free to act in accordance to this moral code...then this moral code is not grounded in my nature, in addition to my not being a moral agent in the first place. It's only at this point that I would even rumble about this whole line of reasoning hinging on the -if- this morality is actually a guide to begin with, the likelihood of our making an error with regards to the definition, and all of this is assuming, of course, that something such as objective morality, whether we have properly defined it or not, exists as anything more than a thought exercise (the bit where we tie observations to the concept and bring it out of the closet, as it were, and remember that you are the one that insists upon this, not I, I'm actually okay with our spotty, oftentimes irrational and completely absurd morality, even if I don't always agree with any given part of it..lol)

When you say morality is a guide. Show that it is, or at least say "Morality -should be- a guide"
When you say that a moral agent must be alive and free to act in accordance...and if you'd like to claim that we are such agents, show that we meet those conditions (I'm giving you the "alive" bit..on general principle....lol.).