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

[GrandizerII]

"Nature" can have a say in those. We'd have to take a pragmatic approach to morality, but it can have a say.

Nature doesn't have a say. We can imagine it does, but that's not the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pragmatically discussing the effect of thievery on a society or an individual would always require that we "observe the animal in it's natural habitat". If we formed justifications either for theft or against it based on those observations and how we might get to a desired resolution (the very essence of pragmatism), we would be letting nature "have a say" in a very big way indeed. We're often reminded that what is "natural" is not necessarily right (or wrong) of course - but it isn't made thus by virtue of it's being natural.

[GrandizerII]

Pragmatically discussing the effect of thievery on a society or an individual would always require that we "observe the animal in it's natural habitat". If we formed justifications either for theft or against it based on those observations and how we might get to a desired resolution (the very essence of pragmatism), we would be letting nature "have a say" in a very big way indeed. We're often reminded that what is "natural" is not necessarily right (or wrong) of course - but it isn't made thus by virtue of it's being natural.

So you observe an animal having its property taken from it in nature. Then? What part of nature says "Therefore, it's wrong?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Observe the effect. Decide whether or not it meets your stated parameters - the premise of your morality - then declare it as right or wrong. Simple stuff, in theory.

The part of nature that says "this leads to this" give us the specific criteria upon which we pragmatically assess right/wrong. That part.

[GrandizerII]

Observe the effect. Decide whether or not it meets your stated parameters - the premise of your morality - then declare it as right or wrong. Simple stuff, in theory.

The part of nature that says "this leads to this" give us the specific criteria upon which we pragmatically assess right/wrong. That part.

You make a judgement based on the criteria you set and you attribute the judgement to nature?

[The Grand Nudger]

My criteria necessarily include reference to nature. They would be indefensible, to me, otherwise.

[GrandizerII]

My criteria necessarily include reference to nature. They would be indefensible, to me, otherwise.

So you set the criteria, you make a judgement based on what nature shows you with respect to the criteria you set.

But you still the one who has to judge if it's right or wrong. The best nature can do is, as you said, show you that "some act leads to some consequence".

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, so nature has a say after all, does it?

[GrandizerII]

Oh, so nature has a say after all, does it?

It doesn't have a say with regard to whether something is right or wrong. No.

[The Grand Nudger]

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"