Morality

[Acrobat]

You appealed to empathy, as evolutionary component of your moral views.

And yes empathy is your personal feelings, even though others also have similar personal feelings.

Several people might share similar  empathetic feelings and sensations when observing certain phenomena, like an innocent person being harmed.

No I did not claim empathy was a moral view, I simply said it is a product of evolution. Cruelty is also a product of evolution. It is still up to humanity how we interact with each other. 

So morality is rooted in what humanity decides about how we ought to interact with each other? Like the consensus of our particular society and culture determines what is right and wrong? i.e a relativist view?

---

No a moral realist, believes moral facts and moral values exist and "that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts." Or in other words a realist, believes in an objective moral reality, and not in morality as a human construct as subjectivist and relativist positions might convey.

What part of this do you think is arguing with me?

This shouldn't be conflated with a moral subjectivist, who might consider certain garden variety facts, such as negative consequences as informing their moral judgements. Just because certain facts might inform your moral opinion, doesn't make you a moral realist.

I thought we already cleared up the little known fact that moral realists and moral subjectivists were different things, lol?

Was there some question you had about non-natural moral realism, or some particular objection to the claim it makes....or no?  That there are objective facts of good and bad...that these facts are not, themselves, natural.

I'm not too sure what I am suppose to be arguing with you about either, since I'm not even sure what your views are?

So you're a non-natural moral realist? That there are objective moral facts, that are not natural? If so can, you provide me an example of one?

[The Grand Nudger]

So morality is rooted in what humanity decides about how we ought to interact with each other?

OFC, it's an evaluation.  No matter what the ontological status of the object may be, the practice of the subject remains that.  Moral facts are the thing, morality is an evaluation of relationships by reference to the thing.

We decide, for example, that skullfucking our neighbors is wrong, because we observe that skullfucking our neighbors is harmful. The natural fact (in a non natural realists conception) is the empricial status of whether or not the act causes harm. The non natural fact - that harm is wrong.

In this understanding, ouir observation of the non natural fact of harms wrongness is the metric by which we compare our empirical observations of the world...and so, that something is a skullfucking isn't why it's wrong. That we decide so isn't why it's wrong. We decide so because it is so, and we observe and communicate empirical cases that express this relationship and grant credibility to our evaluation. This means that anything which includes an empirical fact of the status of harm will be morally relevant - something to pick out of the noise and look more closely at. That this process is largely subconscious isn't even remotely surprising to a non natural realist. It's exactly what would be expected of an agent like ourselves.

[Acrobat]

So morality is rooted in what humanity decides about how we ought to interact with each other?

OFC, it's an evaluation.  No matter what the ontological status of the object may be, the practice of the subject remains that.  Moral facts are the thing, morality is an evaluation of relationships by reference to the thing.

I'm not sure why you're replying for Brian, you seem to be a non-natural moral realist, while Brian seems to be arguing for moral relativism.

[Angrboda]

I apologize if you took anything I said personally, or as any type of judgement of you as a person.

I don’t know you, but I’m sure you’re  a decent dude, I doubt the conclusion that school made you a more moral person, not that you’re not a good person, but that’s okay I won’t push the questions any further.


In my view that’s a pretty weak concept of a good person, an apathetic person, could fit the bill.

Being good in my view is being a person of good character, kind, honest, compassionate, considerate, humble, courageous, etc.. in fact I’d say moral courage is a big one, to stand up for what’s right when needed.

Raising a daughter, i value her being a good person, over being smart. I rather have a good child, a kind and loving one, than a scientific genius.

Why do you think we have different morals now than, say, those we had 2,000 years ago?

Hello? Anybody home?

---

“It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.” - Michael Gazzaniga

That's a fascinating quote.  Unfortunately it seems to leave open the question of whether moral intuitions are not based upon any reasoning whatsoever, both conscious and unconscious, or whether it's just an expression of the fact that unconscious reasoning about morals is privileged over that of explicit, conscious reasoning.  If the latter is true, this doesn't lead to the place you seem to want to go with it.

This could use a response as well. You seem to be suggesting that experience and learning are not effective at shaping or improving one's morals. For the reason given, the Gazzaniga quote doesn't in itself lead to that conclusion. The two things don't even appear particularly related, which would make your whole argument a non sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC, it's an evaluation.  No matter what the ontological status of the object may be, the practice of the subject remains that.  Moral facts are the thing, morality is an evaluation of relationships by reference to the thing.

I'm not sure why you're replying for Brian, you seem to be a non-natural moral realist, while Brian seems to be arguing for moral relativism.

So we've cleared that up, then?  You have no further questions about the relationship between morality and human decision?

[Brian37]

OFC, it's an evaluation.  No matter what the ontological status of the object may be, the practice of the subject remains that.  Moral facts are the thing, morality is an evaluation of relationships by reference to the thing.

I'm not sure why you're replying for Brian, you seem to be a non-natural moral realist, while Brian seems to be arguing for moral relativism.

Holy bolt of lighting Thor! 

Please stop.

I am NOT arguing for "moral relativism" or "moral absolutism". I am simply saying nature is not a factory product made by Willy Wonka.

You are the one insisting that a sky wizard did all this.

Saying that tornados exist does not mean I want one flattening my house or killing me. Saying hurricanes happen, of which one I had to get out of it's path last year, does not mean I wanted to come back to find a flattened or flooded house. Human behaviors, good or bad, do not need super natural answers to explain either.

Again go back and look at the video of the cat defending the kid. If God were required to defend the kid, then the cat should have the same ability to read the bible too. But somehow it managed to defend the kid without the ability of human language. I still get joy out of seeing videos like that, but the only difference is I don't assign what that cat, did, or what humans do like that, to magic or super cognitions.

[Acrobat]

Why do you think we have different morals now than, say, those we had 2,000 years ago?

Hello?  Anybody home?

That depends on what difference you're talking about, some of those differences might be a product of delusions, or falsehoods. Like the Holocaust being built on lies about the Jews.

At the same time, if we were to compile together all the different texts from human civilizations, that outlines moral guidelines and principles, you'd find that there's a great deal of similarity in these outlooks more so than differences.

In fact a variety of studies have shown, that people across cultures, appear to have similar responses to a variety of moral situations, that we share a universal core morality, that just didn't appear now, but has been a part of us from the dawn of human history.

I guess the question could be, even though we share a lot of our moral outlooks in common, why do we still hold some differences, even among semi-reasonable people, and my answer is that some moral questions are complicated, much like truth, which can also differ as a result of it's complexities even among reasonable people, across cultures.

[Brian37]

Hello?  Anybody home?

That depends on what difference you're talking about, some of those differences might be a product of delusions, or falsehoods. Like the Holocaust being built on lies about the Jews.

At the same time, if we were to compile together all the different texts from human civilizations, that outlines moral guidelines and principles, you'd find that there's a great deal of similarity in these outlooks more so than differences.

In fact a variety of studies have shown, that people across cultures, appear to have similar responses to a variety of moral situations, that we share a universal core morality, that just didn't appear now, but has been a part of us from the dawn of human history.

I guess the question could be, even though we share a lot of our moral outlooks in common, why do we still hold some differences, even among semi-reasonable people, and my answer is that some moral questions are complicated, much like truth, which can also differ as a result of it's complexities even among reasonable people, across cultures.

Quote Acrobat..... " that people across cultures, appear to have similar responses to a variety of moral situations,"

I'm Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room, our top story tonight, YOU DON'T SAY?

DUH, but again so what. The reason we react pretty much the same way on average is because we are the same species, not because Allah or Thor or Buddha or Vishnu or Apollo or Jesus exist.

You can find in every religious tradition stories of kindness and empathy. That says to me our behaviors are not in old mythology, or holy books, or holy people, but in our evolution.

In Major League Baseball, a New York Yankee has the same desire to win a game as a Boston Red Sock. They may shake hands after the game is over but during the game, the player running to home plate will try to run over the catcher to get to the home plate. And each player my have different rituals they think help them get the win that really amount to nothing more than superstition when talent and work got them into the league.

[Angrboda]

Hello?  Anybody home?

That depends on what difference you're talking about, some of those differences might be a product of delusions, or falsehoods. Like the Holocaust being built on lies about the Jews.

At the same time, if we were to compile together all the different texts from human civilizations, that outlines moral guidelines and principles, you'd find that there's a great deal of similarity in these outlooks more so than differences.

I'm not interested in the similarities, only the differences. So, then, are you suggesting that any difference between the morals in the bible regarding slavery, as one example, are due to delusion or falsehoods? I presume you would say that the bible doesn't contain falsehoods, so the only conclusion that one could draw from that explanation, failing an alternative explanation, is that people are deluded about the morality of slavery, currently, and the view that slavery is wrong is a falsehood. Is this what you believe, or are there other explanations for differences between past morals, biblical or not, and present ones? Second, what faculty of human beings allows for the correction of delusional beliefs or falsehoods?

And I'd still like a response to my second concern previously. If left unanswered, I'll have to conclude that your position on the matter is vapid and unsupported.

[Acrobat]

That depends on what difference you're talking about, some of those differences might be a product of delusions, or falsehoods. Like the Holocaust being built on lies about the Jews.

At the same time, if we were to compile together all the different texts from human civilizations, that outlines moral guidelines and principles, you'd find that there's a great deal of similarity in these outlooks more so than differences.

In fact a variety of studies have shown, that people across cultures, appear to have similar responses to a variety of moral situations, that we share a universal core morality, that just didn't appear now, but has been a part of us from the dawn of human history.

I guess the question could be, even though we share a lot of our moral outlooks in common, why do we still hold some differences, even among semi-reasonable people, and my answer is that some moral questions are complicated, much like truth, which can also differ as a result of it's complexities even among reasonable people, across cultures.

Quote Acrobat..... " that people across cultures, appear to have similar responses to a variety of moral situations,"

I'm Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room, our top story tonight, YOU DON'T SAY?

DUH, but again so what. The reason we react pretty much the same way on average is because we are the same species, not because Allah or Thor or Buddha or Vishnu or Apollo or Jesus exist.

You can find in every religious tradition stories of kindness and empathy. That says to me our behaviors are not in old mythology, or holy books, or holy people, but in our evolution.

In Major League Baseball, a New York Yankee has the same desire to win a game as a Boston Red Sock. They may shake hands after the game is over but during the game, the player running to home plate will try to run over the catcher to get to the home plate. And each player my have different rituals they think help them get the win that really amount to nothing more than superstition when talent and work got them into the league.

Brian stick to arguments that’s I’ve actually made, and not the one’s you keep inventing for me.