what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[GrandizerII]

For you, granted, but for me, as per my example it does. I'm unnecessary. Nature informs me in the same way that math informs me that 1+2=3. I can't say that 1+2=4 anymore than I can say that if nature provides a scenario that doesn't fit my criteria - then it's still right, because I want it to be right. It's wrong.

Not trumpeting the superiority or the accuracy of any system derived this way, only offering the possibility that such a system can exist (does, indeed, exist).

I pick two sticks from here and two sticks from there, and they add up to 4. That's nature telling me 2 + 2 = 4 ...

Sure, we come up with the symbols and concepts, but at least nature actually shows us the answer directly anyway. Unlike with morality where you have to make the judgement yourself. Nature only shows you whether an act leads to this or that consequence, and you have to judge what this means for you based on your criteria.

[Losty]

For you, granted, but for me, as per my example it does. I'm unnecessary. Nature informs me in the same way that math informs me that 1+2=3. I can't say that 1+2=4 anymore than I can say that if nature provides a scenario that doesn't fit my criteria - then it's still right, because I want it to be right. It's wrong.

Not trumpeting the superiority or the accuracy of any system derived this way, only offering the possibility that such a system can exist (does, indeed, exist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics
edit: there ya go brutha. take special note of adden10. "Evolution and moral ecology"

Can you dumb this down for me please? I know I keep making you do that, sorry.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dumb down moral or ethical pragmatism? Dumb down the evolutionary biology that forms a part of it's underpinning (at least in my particular form) or dumb down some specific part of my comment?

-just to avoid getting windy about the wrong thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I pick two sticks from here and two sticks from there, and they add up to 4. That's nature telling me 2 + 2 = 4 ...

Right, and that's exactly how the sort of morality I'm talking about arrives at a conclusion.

Sure, we come up with the symbols and concepts, but at least nature actually shows us the answer directly anyway. Unlike with morality where you have to make the judgement yourself. Nature only shows you whether an act leads to this or that consequence, and you have to judge what this means for you based on your criteria.

I don't have to make any judgement other than whether or not nature shows me acceptable criteria for right, or wrong. We -all- have to judge what -everything- means based upon our criteria, what's the alternative. This would be an extremely pedantic point to make. I'm not exactly expecting nature to fucking text me bro.

[Losty]

Dumb down moral or ethical pragmatism? Dumb down the evolutionary biology that forms a part of it's underpinning (at least in my particular form) or dumb down some specific part of my comment?

-just to avoid getting windy about the wrong thing.

" Nature informs me in the same way that math informs me that 1+2=3. I can't say that 1+2=4 anymore than I can say that if nature provides a scenario that doesn't fit my criteria - then it's still right, because I want it to be right. It's wrong."

How about dumbing this down?

[GrandizerII]

I pick two sticks from here and two sticks from there, and they add up to 4. That's nature telling me 2 + 2 = 4 ...

Right, and that's exactly how the sort of morality I'm talking about arrives at a conclusion.

Sure, we come up with the symbols and concepts, but at least nature actually shows us the answer directly anyway. Unlike with morality where you have to make the judgement yourself. Nature only shows you whether an act leads to this or that consequence, and you have to judge what this means for you based on your criteria.

I don't have to make any judgement other than whether or not nature shows me acceptable criteria for right, or wrong. We -all- have to judge what -everything- means based upon our criteria, what's the alternative. This would be an extremely pedantic point to make. I'm not exactly expecting nature to fucking text me bro.

Nature doesn't set criteria. We set them ourselves. And then, based on these criteria, nature shows you whether or not an act fulfills the criteria or not.

With 2 + 2 = 4, or 1 + 2 =3, or earth being round, our observations of nature itself directly shows us the answer. We come up with the right language to describe what nature shows us, sure, but nature itself shows the answer without us having to come up with arbitrary criteria in order to be able to make some judgement.

I don't judge that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the earth must be round. I observe that 2 + 2= 4 and that the earth is round (based on what the photographs of Earth show me).

I guess what I'm trying to say is our sensory input data are derived from nature itself when it comes to various mathematical/logical/scientific questions and then we process it in our minds. But when it comes to morality, we spread out the input we choose and then see what answer nature provides us with according to the input we set forth and then we make the proper judgement based on the answer provided.

[The Grand Nudger]

For Losty-

Sure, moral pragmatism starts with something along the lines of "morality/ethics should be a tool for the [blank]"

A popular choice is common good, common happiness, common wellbeing. generally things that we can look around and see every living thing scrambling for in some form or another. The lowest common denominator of anyone involved in the conversation (and likely to be common even to those who aren't or can't be in the conversation).

Now we need observational evidence of the effect of some behaviour in a human population, an explanation of why it has that effect - so forth. Really vigorous shit.

Armed with those two things, the decision as to whether something is right or wrong is reduced to quantifiable metrics. In the same way that I can;t make 1+2=4 I cant make something that doesn't harm or impede the common good (or whatever pragmatic invocation you like) "wrong" - even if I fucking hate it. Which happens often. I'm not deciding what is "right or wrong", I'm observing what may be right or wrong, if the premise is accepted. Fully aware, of course, that the premise will undergo, and indeed require revision - in the same way that observational and experimental science had to feel out what was wrong with (or could be improved upon in) their underlying premises.

Better?

[Losty]

---

For Losty-

Sure, moral pragmatism starts with something along the lines of "morality/ethics should be a tool for the [blank]"

A popular choice is common good, common happiness, common wellbeing. generally things that we can look around and see every living thing scrambling for in some form or another. The lowest common denominator of anyone involved in the conversation (and likely to be common even to those who aren't or can't be in the conversation).

Now we need observational evidence of the effect of some behaviour in a human population, an explanation of why it has that effect - so forth. Really vigorous shit.

Armed with those two things, the decision as to whether something is right or wrong is reduced to quantifiable metrics. In the same way that I can;t make 1+2=4 I cant make something that doesn't harm or impede the common good (or whatever pragmatic invocation you like) "wrong" - even if I fucking hate it. Which happens often. I'm not deciding what is "right or wrong", I'm observing what may be right or wrong, if the premise is accepted. Fully aware, of course, that the premise will undergo, and indeed require revision - in the same way that observational and experimental science had to feel out what was wrong with (or could be improved upon in) their underlying premises.

Better?

---

Yes, thank you!

[The Grand Nudger]

Nature doesn't set criteria. We set them ourselves.

Correct, we set the criteria. Who else would, and who else could lay claim in any case?

And then, based on these criteria, nature shows you whether or not an act fulfills the criteria or not.

Correct.

With 2 + 2 = 4, or 1 + 2 =3, or earth being round, our observations of nature itself directly shows us the answer. We come up with the right language to describe what nature shows us, sure, but nature itself shows the answer without us having to come up with arbitrary criteria in order to be able to make some judgement.

We do come up with criteria so that "nature can give us the answers". If we didn't, we wouldn't know whether or not we had any answers. My criteria aren't any more arbitrary than "2" or "4".

I don't judge that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the earth must be round. I observe that 2 + 2= 4 and that the earth is round (based on what the photographs of Earth show me).

-and we can "observe" what is or is not "good" in the exactly same way.

[GrandizerII]

2 and 4 are part of a language to describe. They are not part of some criteria.