Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[genkaus]

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

The principles that every person has the right to his life and freedom.

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?

It is very much relevant. So which do you require proof for - that we are alive or that we are free to act?

What fact in question Genk...

You tell me. You are the one doing the questioning.

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?

Actually, it is. We can be sure that the tag does, in fact, refer to the concept because we have made it so.

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

Aren't we? I think the fact that we do, shows that we are.

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).

Are you doubting the human capacity to act according to reason and to consider our actions? Something that we do and continue doing even through this discussion?

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.

Consider the last two sentences. There are two distinct and unrelated statements there.

1. A moral agent must be free to act according to a moral code. It does not specify which moral code. It also has nothing to do with whether a particular moral code is based on facts or not.

2. If a moral code is to be objective, then it must be grounded in facts about human nature and reality.

There are multiple combinations of the two:

a) I'm free to act according to this moral code, but it is not based on facts. Thus, I am a moral agent and the code is not objective.

b) I'm free to act and it is based on facts. Both agency and objectivity satisfied.

c) I'm not free to act, but it is based on facts. Objectivity satisfied, but agency is not. For example, some other party which is not acting on the said moral code it constraining your actions.

d) I'm not free to act and it is not based on facts. Neither condition satisfied.

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"

Now those bits are completely senseless. What you are saying basically amounts to "Prove to me that all bachelors are actually unmarried".

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.).

The "free" part is a general principle as well - unless you happen to be a slave. This point is simply ridiculous. Acting in accordance to our thoughts, reasons or considerations is common enough to be taken for granted and it is usually the absence of such a capacity that needs to be proven. The fact that we do it every day should be proof enough that we are free to do it.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Good ole life and liberty. Those two are present in some systems, though not all, and we consistently violate both of them when the legal structure built around our morality has been violated.

Would it be fair to say that if a person did not adhere to this objective morality that they no longer deserved consideration as a moral agent? What then? Not really a problem for objective morality, obviously, I'm just interested.

-Like I said, I'll give you the alive bit, hows about free to act? Deja-vu time.

-You're screwing with me right? I didn't realize that we were actually discussing facts yet, we hadn't gotten past your definitions, caveats, and propositions.

-But does the concept as we are now describing or refining it match observations of the object we are attempting to describe with it? There are only so many ways I can word this.

-You say that we do, but I think the jury is still out on that one Genk. That's not the striongest criticism inm any case, we could act in accordance to any given moral principle completely by accident (or even in ignorance of that principle). Your definition for objective morality and moral agents seems to me to imply not only the rules of the game but the process one must use to arrive at conclusions that are in accordance with the rules of the game. Hard, scary determinism rears it's ugly head here.

-I wouldn't doubt that we seem to perceive our actions as rational, reasoned, or considered, and I wouldn't doubt that we perceive ourselves as capable of looking back upon our actions or spit-balling our potential future actions, but you have to escape determinism Genk. You have to show that we aren't just rationalizing things after the fact. You said that this morality would be based in demonstrable facts and observations, not "hey, don't you agree with me?" or "hey, we seem to think this is the case, for the most part, so lets run with it". Maybe I'm not making myself clear here, I'm very, very friendly towards the idea, but I'd like to see some of those things you said this morality would or could be.

-Two distinct statements, yes, but very much related to the morality in question, and our ability to be moral agents. Look at all of the possibilities you've just offered. I'm assuming that your position is B, now explain to me why b is the case, and not a, c, or d.

-I hereby define blueberry waffles as a small firearm designed to be held in one hand. Here's the trouble, blueberry waffles already carries connotations, other definitions have been offered, why should you choose mine over theirs (and is it possible that when i say "blueberry waffles" I'm actually referring to something else entirely? You say morality is a guide, but someone in the field of evolutionary biology , specifically someone who studies the possible reasons for our behavioral tendencies with regards to the same might tell you that morality is the expression of behaviors which have led to survival advantages over other populations ( I only choose this because we see it so often on these boards, there are countless ideas as to what morality is, in addition to their being countless ideas as to what is moral or immoral). You could still say that morality -should be- a guide, even if it currently isn't, but wouldn't that kind of a distinction be useful? Im not asking you to prove to me that bachelors are unmarried, because that is an issue that rests on definition alone. I'm asking you to prove to me that your definition of -morality as a guide- is more accurate than any other definition of morality, because the definition of morality (what it is and isn't) isn't so decided as you seem to be insisting (as far as I'm aware, obviously).

Bachelors are unmarried by definition.

Morality is a guide by your insistence.

[Angrboda]

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

How does it fall apart?

The word 'normatively' feeds into a loop just like the definition you're complaining about. And definition #1 isn't sufficiently tight to exclude non-moral codes, so it's wrong. That's both your citations.

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

How is it misleading?

You cited it as authoratative and inclusive when it was neither. No lexicographical body in the world recognizes the SEP as authoritative about English usage. It's not a dictionary.

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.

You were discussing the meaning of morality and its substance, not the definition of the word, so it was an invalid appeal to authority. If I asked you what the meaning of guilt was, and you quoted me a dictionary, I'd laugh in your face.

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.

And how is the "axiomatic" or basic concept horn defined? (watch for the loop there)

---

Do you really need me to tell you these things, or are you just unable to ever admit that you're wrong?

[genkaus]

-Good ole life and liberty. Those two are present in some systems, though not all, and we consistently violate both of them when the legal structure built around our morality has been violated.

Would it be fair to say that if a person did not adhere to this objective morality that they no longer deserved consideration as a moral agent? What then? Not really a problem for objective morality, obviously, I'm just interested.

I guess so.

-Like I said, I'll give you the alive bit, hows about free to act? Deja-vu time.

See below.

-You're screwing with me right? I didn't realize that we were actually discussing facts yet, we hadn't gotten past your definitions, caveats, and propositions.

Which point are you addressing here?

-But does the concept as we are now describing or refining it match observations of the object we are attempting to describe with it? There are only so many ways I can word this.

Clearly it does, or that word would not be applicable here.

-You say that we do, but I think the jury is still out on that one Genk. That's not the striongest criticism inm any case, we could act in accordance to any given moral principle completely by accident (or even in ignorance of that principle). Your definition for objective morality and moral agents seems to me to imply not only the rules of the game but the process one must use to arrive at conclusions that are in accordance with the rules of the game. Hard, scary determinism rears it's ugly head here.

We could is not an argument for whether or not we do. Besides, even within determinism, the capacity to reason and consider is not negated.

-I wouldn't doubt that we seem to perceive our actions as rational, reasoned, or considered, and I wouldn't doubt that we perceive ourselves as capable of looking back upon our actions or spit-balling our potential future actions, but you have to escape determinism Genk. You have to show that we aren't just rationalizing things after the fact. You said that this morality would be based in demonstrable facts and observations, not "hey, don't you agree with me?" or "hey, we seem to think this is the case, for the most part, so lets run with it". Maybe I'm not making myself clear here, I'm very, very friendly towards the idea, but I'd like to see some of those things you said this morality would or could be.

Any conflict with determinism would come in only if according to determinism, we did not have the capacity to reason or consider our actions. That fact that you accept that we do have the capacity to "rationalize after the fact", means reasoning and considering is possible even within whatever version of determinism you subscribe to. Secondly, that we "rationalize our actions after the fact" argument may apply to short term, singular actions like standing up or picking up an object, but it is simply not applicable to a series of connected actions all of which lead to a singular goal.

-Two distinct statements, yes, but very much related to the morality in question, and our ability to be moral agents. Look at all of the possibilities you've just offered. I'm assuming that your position is B, now explain to me why b is the case, and not a, c, or d.

As I have said repeatedly, B is not the case currently, since we do not have a complete picture of an objective moral code. In most cases it is a) and in other it is d). In some rare ones, it might be c).

-I hereby define blueberry waffles as a small firearm designed to be held in one hand. Here's the trouble, blueberry waffles already carries connotations, other definitions have been offered, why should you choose mine over theirs (and is it possible that when i say "blueberry waffles" I'm actually referring to something else entirely? You say morality is a guide, but someone in the field of evolutionary biology , specifically someone who studies the possible reasons for our behavioral tendencies with regards to the same might tell you that morality is the expression of behaviors which have led to survival advantages over other populations (I only choose this because we see it so often on these boards, there are countless ideas as to what morality is, in addition to their being countless ideas as to what is moral or immoral). You could still say that morality -should be- a guide, even if it currently isn't, but wouldn't that kind of a distinction be useful? Im not asking you to prove to me that bachelors are unmarried, because that is an issue that rests on definition alone. I'm asking you to prove to me that your definition of -morality as a guide- is more accurate than any other definition of morality, because the definition of morality (what it is and isn't) isn't so decided as you seem to be insisting (as far as I'm aware, obviously).

The definition of a word can vary depending on the context and currently we are discussing it in a philosophical forum. So, I consider the definition given with respect to philosophy to be the most relevant and accurate for this discussion.

Now, put that aside for a moment and see if the same definition cannot apply to evolutionary biology as well. We have defined morality as a "code of conduct" or "a guide on how one should act" (the most generic definition). Putting aside any and all philosophical connotations that are implicit (such as application to moral agents), consider the definition form a biologist's point of view. A biologists sees animals behaving (acting) consistently. Those actions are geared towards a particular goal (survival). And although the specifics may differ from situation to situation, the actions seem to follow a set of specific principles. When we look for a concept within the language that most closely matches the given observations, we come up with "morality". However, since not every aspect of human morality is compatible with the observations here (such as conscious consideration of actions), we make a distinction between the two. The definition at its most basic, however, still applies.

[The Grand Nudger]

Biologists also often nod to the notion that this behavior could just as easily be a heuristic (and in some cases have decided that it absolutely is). A heuristic is not a guide of any sort, it may appear to be so if you are aware of the process and external to it, but that is not how a heuristic works for the creature that may be subject to it. In other words Genk, are we guided by our notions of morality, or could it be possible that what we communicate and codify as our notions of morality are in fact a heuristic that has kept us alive. If we are inclined towards particular behaviors, even complicated sets of them, by some part of our genetic makeup -with no actual awareness on the part of that genetic makeup of what problem is being solved or why those actions are taking place, and much less in the way of actual direction from our conscious thoughts as we once previously believed, then morality as we know it, not as you have defined it, is not a guide, even if it should be. I actually agree with you here, I think that morality should be a guide (I couldn't for the life of me explain why it "should" be anything, btw), but I'm not completely certain that it is, currently. Which is why I mentioned that a more specific wording of that particular statement might be warranted. It is also the entirety of my problem with your accepting this definition of morality as some sort of fact, or an issue of unmarried bachelors.

[genkaus]

Biologists also often nod to the notion that this behavior could just as easily be a heuristic (and in some cases have decided that it absolutely is). A heuristic is not a guide of any sort, it may appear to be so if you are aware of the process and external to it, but that is not how a heuristic works for the creature that may be subject to it.

Are we talking about animal morality here or human morality.

In other words Genk, are we guided by our notions of morality, or could it be possible that what we communicate and codify as our notions of morality are in fact a heuristic that has kept us alive.

You do realize that once we communicate and codify those notions, they'd no longer be heuristic to those we have communicated them to. That is, while biologists may argue that morality may have started as a heuristic behavior, but with generations of codification and communication, that is no longer the case for humans.

If we are inclined towards particular behaviors, even complicated sets of them, by some part of our genetic makeup -with no actual awareness on the part of that genetic makeup of what problem is being solved or why those actions are taking place, and much less in the way of actual direction from our conscious thoughts as we once previously believed, then morality as we know it, not as you have defined it, is not a guide, even if it should be.

However, the fact being that we are mostly aware of our complex problems and the actions we undertake to solve them, we can safely say that for us, morality is a guide.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are we talking about animal morality here or human morality.

A difference that can only only be hoped to be argued over by definition, yet again. We are animals. Human morality is an animal morality. Our morality, whatever it is, appears to be more complex than that of say, a cow. The varying levels of complexity that we may perceieve don't rule out heuristics in the case of the cow, ourselves, or an ant. I'm screaming bias on this one (I always do).

You do realize that once we communicate and codify those notions, they'd no longer be heuristic to those we have communicated them to. That is, while biologists may argue that morality may have started as a heuristic behavior, but with generations of codification and communication, that is no longer the case for humans.

Communicating the particulars of your hueristic process does not change that it is a heuristic process. Borrowing from a set of equally or more successful hueristics to augment your own is equally incapable of changing the fact that they are heuristics.

However, the fact being that we are mostly aware of our complex problems and the actions we undertake to solve them, we can safely say that for us, morality is a guide.

I already handled this, it can appear to be such even if it is not. Which is quite often the case...with heuristics. The most famous example being ants, who's actions appear to be guided, who appear to have some sort of oversight, who create complex (relatively) social structures and physical objects, when in fact, no such guidance is occurring (or even possible in their case). A solution to a problem that relies on this process can have literally nothing to do with the problem at any given step, no direction whatsoever, the only thing that matters is the outcome, and there isn't anything pulling the strings to make that happen. For something to be a guide, to me, it would have to have just a little bit more. But this seems to be a difference in definition, yet again.

If reasoning were a string of inputs and outputs that allowed you to "get it right" by scrutinizing any given step, heuristics could be seen as a string of guesses (no inputs required) that had a statistically high occurrence of "getting it right"

[genkaus]

A difference that can only only be hoped to be argued over by definition, yet again. We are animals. Human morality is an animal morality. Our morality, whatever it is, appears to be more complex than that of say, a cow. The varying levels of complexity that we may perceieve don't rule out heuristics in the case of the cow, ourselves, or an ant. I'm screaming bias on this one (I always do).

You do realize that the key difference between them is the ability to reflect or consider one's actions, right? Because if you don't, we need to start crusading for death penalty to lions on multiple homicide counts.

Communicating the particulars of your hueristic process does not change that it is a heuristic process. Borrowing from a set of equally or more successful hueristics to augment your own is equally incapable of changing the fact that they are heuristics.

Actually, it does. Heuristic basically means coming to an answer by trial and error. Once you come to an answer and pass in on to someone else, then for them the solution is no longer trial and error based.

I already handled this, it can appear to be such even if it is not. Which is quite often the case...with heuristics. The most famous example being ants, who's actions appear to be guided, who appear to have some sort of oversight, who create complex (relatively) social structures and physical objects, when in fact, no such guidance is occurring (or even possible in their case). A solution to a problem that relies on this process can have literally nothing to do with the problem at any given step, no direction whatsoever, the only thing that matters is the outcome, and there isn't anything pulling the strings to make that happen. For something to be a guide, to me, it would have to have just a little bit more. But this seems to be a difference in definition, yet again.

If reasoning were a string of inputs and outputs that allowed you to "get it right" by scrutinizing any given step, heuristics could be seen as a string of guesses (no inputs required) that had a statistically high occurrence of "getting it right"

Once again, it is irrelevant how heuristics work in case of animals, since that is not how we work. The actions we take to achieve our goals are not a series of directionless guesses that lead to a certain goal which we later justify as what we wanted all along. The series of actions we undertake are in fact directed towards our goals. When we are out of groceries, we don't end up at the supermarket by chance - we have to undertake the all the actions with the specific goal of getting there. The fact that heuristics may appear guided is irrelevant to current human morality, because our current human actions are in fact guided.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Or for the abolishment of the death penalty for humans in the case of multiple homicides, yeah. Of course, your lions bit is sleight of hand, they don't have laws. We're making rules for ourselves here, and why would any given morality or law that applies to humans apply to lions if it wouldn't apply to slitznarpians? There can be quite a bit of similarity between us, including how we go about making decisions or how we conceptualize our actions, but so long as there were differences in our circumstances (biologically speaking) the lions get off on the same card you used to excuse the slitznarpians. All this being said, when was the last time you saw someone brought up on homicide charges for hunting deer, because that's a more accurate comparison, now isn't it? If you are referring instead to lions killing lions, well, that's as wrong as humans killing humans (and for the same reasons), in my book, but I don't have the same ideas of morality as you, nor do I expect lions to bring each other up on criminal charges, nor do I insist that what is wrong in my book is even remotely objective or authoritative regardless of what I base it on.

-You can give someone a solution and they can employ it with great success without ever having considered the solution at all (you can use a telephone, correct, but I'm guessing you can't explain how it works). This also doesn't stop a heuristic process (if that's what our morality is) from continuing even after any given solution has been found. We could continue to develop more solutions and we could communicate these solutions to each other. I mention this only because it seems to fit with our observations about how we form and employ this "morality" thing.

-Again, so you say, but I wasn't aware that the subject was so one sided. http://www.southalabama.edu/psychology/g...005)Moral_ This took me 10 seconds to google (and admittedly I was already aware of this particular subject) You seem so confident in stating that we don't work this way, well, excellent. Would you be so kind as to demolish this article for me? I believe the meat is in section 4. Most of it is drawn from Kahneman & Tversky (who you could also demolish for me if you like, though their focus wasn't morality, but just how often we seem to be employing heuristics).
(obviously doesn't have to be in your next reply or anything, we can continue the discussion nevertheless)

[genkaus]

-Or for the abolishment of the death penalty for humans in the case of multiple homicides, yeah. Of course, your lions bit is sleight of hand, they don't have laws. We're making rules for ourselves here, and why would any given morality or law that applies to humans apply to lions if it wouldn't apply to slitznarpians? There can be quite a bit of similarity between us, including how we go about making decisions or how we conceptualize our actions, but so long as there were differences in our circumstances (biologically speaking) the lions get off on the same card you used to excuse the slitznarpians. All this being said, when was the last time you saw someone brought up on homicide charges for hunting deer, because that's a more accurate comparison, now isn't it? If you are referring instead to lions killing lions, well, that's as wrong as humans killing humans (and for the same reasons), in my book, but I don't have the same ideas of morality as you, nor do I expect lions to bring each other up on criminal charges, nor do I insist that what is wrong in my book is even remotely objective or authoritative regardless of what I base it on.

So, now do you understand that human and animal morality are different?

-You can give someone a solution and they can employ it with great success without ever having considered the solution at all (you can use a telephone, correct, but I'm guessing you can't explain how it works). This also doesn't stop a heuristic process (if that's what our morality is) from continuing even after any given solution has been found. We could continue to develop more solutions and we could communicate these solutions to each other. I mention this only because it seems to fit with our observations about how we form and employ this "morality" thing.

Also irrelevant. Just because heuristics can continue, doesn't mean it does continue. Even if the beginning of morality was heuristic, i.e. figured out by trial and error, once we had the capacity to reason and consider our actions and their consequences, it'd no longer be so.

-Again, so you say, but I wasn't aware that the subject was so one sided. http://www.southalabama.edu/psychology/g...005)Moral_ This took me 10 seconds to google (and admittedly I was already aware of this particular subject) You seem so confident in stating that we don't work this way, well, excellent. Would you be so kind as to demolish this article for me? I believe the meat is in section 4. Most of it is drawn from Kahneman & Tversky (who you could also demolish for me if you like, though their focus wasn't morality, but just how often we seem to be employing heuristics).
(obviously doesn't have to be in your next reply or anything, we can continue the discussion nevertheless)

You do understand the basic difference between where heuristics is applicable and where it is not right? By the way, the link is not working and as far as I can tell, Prospect Theory has little to do with morality.