RE: Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.
June 14, 2012 at 8:18 am
(This post was last modified: June 14, 2012 at 8:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)
-I'm just running with your earlier requirements for what morality would be (who it would apply to and why), you made provisions for the slitznarpians/human scenario, and so that would excuse the lions as well. Doesn't have much to do with anything that I understand, only what you have stated.
-It's not irrelevant, stop claiming that any possibility other than the one you have presented in support of your notions of objective morality are irrelevant. You keep repeating that argument that we are no longer engaging in heuristics because we can communicate but this is not the case, and I've explained why. I'll try again. A heuristic program is developed that solves the equation 1+1= ? for a desktop pc. We save that heuristic and transfer it to another pc. It remains a heuristic. To take this further, we keep creating heuristics programs that solve 1+1=? and transferring them from one pc to another. They all remain heuristics, they all solve the problem, and we have a bunch to choose from. It's not difficult to see the similarities between this process and our notions of morality. I'm not claiming that this is definitely how it's done, but I am presenting the possibility, and it isn't just theorycraft. This would have severe implications for your claims of what morality -is- to say the least, but it would be even more destructive to the idea of humans as moral agents (as you have defined it). You have insisted that this morality would be grounded in facts about the nature of a moral agent, and when presented with two potential moral agents you made provisions for morality based upon the particular circumstances of that agent. Well....heuristics do seem to be in our nature, they do seem to be at play in morality. Hence the "should" i'm arguing for as opposed to all of the "is's" I see.
-I'll try to find you a working link. The asian disease problem was an experiment that was run (and most definitely does have to do with morality, as it was an explicitly moral question) and the results that the researchers got implied that a heuristic was being used to make moral decisions at least in that case. This was a tiny fraction of their overall focus, of course, the larger bits having to do with the massive amount of heuristics we seem to employ under the guise of "reasoning". So we do work that way Genk, a hell of alot of the time, if these folks are correct, and even in the arena of "morality".
If morality is not the thing you claim it to be, that would be relevant. If you are going to claim that morality -is- this or that you would have to eliminate other possibilities, I'm not asking you to eliminate every possibility, just this one, that is grounded in an experiment. You don't feel that this is a reasonable request, and you also don't feel that the qualifier "should be" is applicable, I'm asking you why.
If our nature is not that of a moral agent (as you have defined it) and if morality must be based on facts about a moral agent (and specific to the agent in question, which your letting the slitznarpians off the hook on our morality would seem to imply) then that would be relevant. If I'm mistaken here in some particular I'd love to know why.
For my part, and I'm coming around to your way of thinking on this, I would say that morality should be a guide, and that human beings were capable of being moral agents (as defined- but perhaps requiring some pretty hefty caveats in the definition) even if it were not, strictly speaking, in our natures to be so. I would go further as to say that an objective morality based on logic, reason and demonstrable fact would be a much faster track to results than a heuristic sort of morality would be (even if the results achieved might be indistinguishable) and therefore preferable. The trouble, for me at least, is that I could not definitively show that we are capable of being moral agents, and that I am at a loss as to explain why morality should be a guide -except by reference to results-. The question I then ask myself is this, "Why should I choose any given result over another?". I mean, I could give you litany of reasons as to why I prefer one result over another, but I can't guarantee that they're all based in logic, reason, or demonstrable fact.
-It's not irrelevant, stop claiming that any possibility other than the one you have presented in support of your notions of objective morality are irrelevant. You keep repeating that argument that we are no longer engaging in heuristics because we can communicate but this is not the case, and I've explained why. I'll try again. A heuristic program is developed that solves the equation 1+1= ? for a desktop pc. We save that heuristic and transfer it to another pc. It remains a heuristic. To take this further, we keep creating heuristics programs that solve 1+1=? and transferring them from one pc to another. They all remain heuristics, they all solve the problem, and we have a bunch to choose from. It's not difficult to see the similarities between this process and our notions of morality. I'm not claiming that this is definitely how it's done, but I am presenting the possibility, and it isn't just theorycraft. This would have severe implications for your claims of what morality -is- to say the least, but it would be even more destructive to the idea of humans as moral agents (as you have defined it). You have insisted that this morality would be grounded in facts about the nature of a moral agent, and when presented with two potential moral agents you made provisions for morality based upon the particular circumstances of that agent. Well....heuristics do seem to be in our nature, they do seem to be at play in morality. Hence the "should" i'm arguing for as opposed to all of the "is's" I see.
-I'll try to find you a working link. The asian disease problem was an experiment that was run (and most definitely does have to do with morality, as it was an explicitly moral question) and the results that the researchers got implied that a heuristic was being used to make moral decisions at least in that case. This was a tiny fraction of their overall focus, of course, the larger bits having to do with the massive amount of heuristics we seem to employ under the guise of "reasoning". So we do work that way Genk, a hell of alot of the time, if these folks are correct, and even in the arena of "morality".
If morality is not the thing you claim it to be, that would be relevant. If you are going to claim that morality -is- this or that you would have to eliminate other possibilities, I'm not asking you to eliminate every possibility, just this one, that is grounded in an experiment. You don't feel that this is a reasonable request, and you also don't feel that the qualifier "should be" is applicable, I'm asking you why.
If our nature is not that of a moral agent (as you have defined it) and if morality must be based on facts about a moral agent (and specific to the agent in question, which your letting the slitznarpians off the hook on our morality would seem to imply) then that would be relevant. If I'm mistaken here in some particular I'd love to know why.
For my part, and I'm coming around to your way of thinking on this, I would say that morality should be a guide, and that human beings were capable of being moral agents (as defined- but perhaps requiring some pretty hefty caveats in the definition) even if it were not, strictly speaking, in our natures to be so. I would go further as to say that an objective morality based on logic, reason and demonstrable fact would be a much faster track to results than a heuristic sort of morality would be (even if the results achieved might be indistinguishable) and therefore preferable. The trouble, for me at least, is that I could not definitively show that we are capable of being moral agents, and that I am at a loss as to explain why morality should be a guide -except by reference to results-. The question I then ask myself is this, "Why should I choose any given result over another?". I mean, I could give you litany of reasons as to why I prefer one result over another, but I can't guarantee that they're all based in logic, reason, or demonstrable fact.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
