RE: Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.
June 12, 2012 at 6:41 pm
(This post was last modified: June 12, 2012 at 8:28 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 11, 2012 at 5:52 am)genkaus Wrote: 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.
(June 11, 2012 at 5:52 am)genkaus Wrote: 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".
(June 11, 2012 at 5:52 am)genkaus Wrote: 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"?