A Moral Reality

[Succubus]

What is a non natural reality?

[GrandizerII]

What is a non natural reality?

In the context of morality, non natural morality still assumes natural reality but in which moral good and bad cannot he equated to anything we can observe. It's unfortunate wording by a guy named Moore.

Do note though that Acrobat means something different by it than what secular non-naturalists (in the moral sense) mean. Ultimately he is still alluding to a supernatural God here. So he would view reality itself as non natural.

[Acrobat]

because you won’t know if it is actually wrong without the justification.

You ever heard of moral dumbfounding? Our rational moral justification are post hoc justifications, that have very little to do with why we recognize some things are bad.

Also, these are obvious moral choices. Have you never had to think about a situation about what was right or wrong? A lot of moral choices can be difficult and the only way to have confidence that your choice is moral is to have a justification.

Not really. In the real world, in the sort moral dilemmas that affect real people, the situation is more a matter of persons inability to recognize their own intentions, not so much what’s right and wrong. They do things out of hatred and resentment but lie to themselves by believing it’s out of love, or for justice, etc...

A man takes our his disappointments in life on his wife or child, but imagines that it’s something his wife or kid did, rather than recognize his scapegoating.

It’s because people often prefer to lie to themselves, be in the dark that in the light.

If you ever had a love one who is a disappointing moral failure, the problem isn’t that they don’t know what’s right or wrong, but they seem incapable of living right, perhaps even prefer it, or think it’s what they deserve and belong, and suffer in the darkness as a result. Men are afraid of themselves, their condition that put them there, to have it exposed, and brought to where it’s revealed, that they rather stay and die in that condition than anything else.

The reality of morality is far different then one you think it is.

[GrandizerII]

because you won’t know if it is actually wrong without the justification.

You ever heard of moral dumbfounding? Our rational moral justification are post hoc justifications, that have very little to do with why we recognize some things are bad.

Also, these are obvious moral choices. Have you never had to think about a situation about what was right or wrong? A lot of moral choices can be difficult and the only way to have confidence that your choice is moral is to have a justification.

Not really. In the real world, in the sort moral dilemmas that affect real people, the situation is more a matter of persons inability to recognize their own intentions, not so much what’s right and wrong. They do things out of hatred and resentment but lie to themselves by believing it’s out of love, or for justice, etc...

A man takes our his disappointments in life on his wife or child, but imagines that it’s something his wife or kid did, rather than recognize his scapegoating.

It’s because people often prefer to lie to themselves, be in the dark that in the light.

If you ever had a love one who is a disappointing moral failure, the problem isn’t that they don’t know what’s right or wrong, but they seem incapable of living right, perhaps even prefer it, or think it’s what they deserve and belong, and suffer in the darkness as a result. Men are afraid of themselves, their condition that put them there, to have it exposed, and brought to where it’s revealed, that they rather stay and die in that condition than anything else.

The reality of morality is far different then one you think it is.

You keep confusing how you see the world with what the world is. It's not like you're basing anything you're saying here on the science.

The fact is none of us are perfect beings capable of coming up.with the perfect moral answer in all circumstances. That's why we fail in many cases to identify whether something is right or wrong, that's why we experience moral dumbfoundedness, why we scratch our heads a lot when trying to resolve the cart trolley problems in our minds. We're not well equipped with all things moral, but we're nevertheless good enough at intuiting that some things are wrong others are right

[Acrobat]

You should go back to the OP and reread. You posed a question that is clearly answerable by science.

Sure, the OP was about how it looked like at the level of the brain. It doesn't address the source of it, the stimuli that the brain to perceive what it does. The OP was primarily composed to show how A and B are post hoc justifications.

And based on my understanding of the sciences, how we've evolved morally has a lot to do with wellbeing and flourishing and such. It's just not definitive yet and is far more complex than just one stock answer to the question of human morality.

Our biological features aren't the same as rationally deduced considerations. All of our biological tendency's, and inclination both good and bad exists as the result of the survival and reproductive benefits they offered. Secondly morality isn' just about matters of behaviors, but beliefs.And one of those beliefs, thats near universal is a perception of an objective moral reality out there. If such a reality exists it can't be reduced to our biology, anymore so than any other objective object can be.

[GrandizerII]

You should go back to the OP and reread. You posed a question that is clearly answerable by science.

Sure, the OP was about how it looked like at the level of the brain. It doesn't address the source of it, the stimuli that the brain to perceive what it does. The OP was primarily composed to show how A and B are post hoc justifications.

Your OP is just one of various ways of looking at morality. You think B is necessarily a post hoc justification, and others say it's what you do when you try to explain about why something is right or wrong (rather than how you arrive at believing something is right or wrong). So B and C are not mutually exclusive.

And based on my understanding of the sciences, how we've evolved morally has a lot to do with wellbeing and flourishing and such. It's just not definitive yet and is far more complex than just one stock answer to the question of human morality.

Our biological features aren't the same as rationally deduced considerations. All of our biological tendency's, and inclination both good and bad exists as the result of the survival and reproductive benefits they offered. Secondly morality isn' just about matters of behaviors, but beliefs.And one of those beliefs, thats near universal is a perception of an objective moral reality out there. If such a reality exists it can't be reduced to our biology, anymore so than any other objective object can be.

Beliefs are linked to one's biology. One believes X is good ultimately because of one's biology, not because they're divine beings who can somehow transcend their own biological nature.

Objective realities aren't reduced to one's biology, but you can't get from this to therefore one can adequately apprehend such reality. It also doesn't mean an objective moral reality is a perfect reality free of head-scratching dilemmas.

---

By the way, according to Moore, you're in the same boat as a moral naturalist. Because you define good in terms of a god, rather than just simply that good is indefinable.

[Vince]

You ever heard of moral dumbfounding? Our rational moral justification are post hoc justifications, that have very little to do with why we recognize some things are bad.

I disagree.  I do agree that we have immediate initial thoughts about a moral action that is often correct.  But without comparing that action to a moral standard you have no idea if it is right.  We have morals and a sense of what is right or wrong but we need to use reason to justify the moral beliefs.  It is not a justification after the fact just so we can do anything we want.  I am not saying that people don't do that, I have done that as well.  However, we can use reason to determine what is morally right and wrong.

Not really. In the real world, in the sort moral dilemmas that affect real people, the situation is more a matter of persons inability to recognize their own intentions, not so much what’s right and wrong. They do things out of hatred and resentment but lie to themselves by believing it’s out of love, or for justice, etc...

For all people some of the time I agree.  That does not mean that some cannot have justifications for their beliefs.  It seems to me that you are advocating that whatever we think is moral in a situation we should do that.  That lends to lead to bad moral descisions if I am understanding correctly.

A man takes our his disappointments in life on his wife or child, but imagines that it’s something his wife or kid did, rather than recognize his scapegoating.

It’s because people often prefer to lie to themselves, be in the dark that in the light.

If you ever had a love one who is a disappointing moral failure, the problem isn’t that they don’t know what’s right or wrong, but they seem incapable of living right, perhaps even prefer it, or think it’s what they deserve and belong, and suffer in the darkness as a result. Men are afraid of themselves, their condition that put them there, to have it exposed, and brought to where it’s revealed, that they rather stay and die in that condition than anything else.

How people actually act and how we should act is the reason we need morality.  Lumping all people as you describe here is ridiculous.  Having a way to determine what is morally right will help solve the problem you describe here.  There are many situations where we need to contemplate, get advice and reason to determine what the right/moral thing to do is and even then it may be unclear.  

For example, many parents have an intuition that spanking their child is a moral punishment, but many after really thinking about it come to the conclusion that spanking is morally wrong.  Without reason morality is just how you feel what is right at any moment, not what is actually right.

The reality of morality is far different then one you think it is.

I think people are far different that you think they are.

[LastPoet]

For example, many parents have an intuition that spanking their child is a moral punishment, but many after really thinking about it come to the conclusion that spanking is morally wrong.  Without reason morality is just how you feel what is right at any moment, not what is actually right.

There is a theist here (not acrobat, he is relatively a good theist) that made a thread on "spare the rod, spoil the child" as good moral grounds. Im on mobile its a PITA to search for. He tripled and quadruple down that spanking a child is the best way.

When you hinge your morality in gods, when gods are as many or more than there are believers, it is not good grounds to establish justice.

God is just a super ego. In hindsight always right, more perfect than the believer. An artifact in mankind's mentality.

[Acrobat]

II do agree that we have immediate initial thoughts about a moral action that is often correct.  But without comparing that action to a moral standard you have no idea if it is right.  

Yet our minds recognize right and wrong, without requiring us to take any time comparing it to some standard we latter acquired. When you think of your standards, you're nor really reevaluating whether something is good or bad, as much as you're trying to ad hoc justify it as part of that standard. You know the answer before you've put it through the equation.

Thinking/reasoning relates more to question of how we should deal with such actions, what resources should we allocate if any, what political policies should we favor, etc..... Rather then whether something is good or bad.

For all people some of the time I agree.  That does not mean that some cannot have justifications for their beliefs.  

The justifications people give for their moral beliefs, almost never have anything to with why they believe/perceive things are moral. They believe the brains followed the formulas of their particular moral philosophies to derive that conclusion, but it's more like the non-rational perception of an objective value. More the result of seeing yellowness, than a mathematical equation being run through rationally.

If you put students through courses on moral philosophies, and avoid placing comparable children in such courses, none would be any better than the other in recognizing right from wrong. If it did, we should probably put Sam Harris and The Moral Landscape on the curriculum for prison reform. If only those criminals had a proper moral philosophy, could they have avoided their crimes.

It seems to me that you are advocating that whatever we think is moral in a situation we should do that.  That lends to lead to bad moral descisions if I am understanding correctly.

Yes, you should do whatever you see as moral, as long you're being honest, and not deluding yourself, is sage advice.

The problem arises when people are not being honest with themselves, and are deluding themselves.

For example, many parents have an intuition that spanking their child is a moral punishment, but many after really thinking about it come to the conclusion that spanking is morally wrong.  Without reason morality is just how you feel what is right at any moment, not what is actually right.

The problem with spanking, is that its often driven by frustration and anger, than by an honest desire to correct ones children, when they've done something wrong. Parents who punish their children in other ways, but out of frustration, are also culprits.

Children, and their inability to defend themselves, become easy scapegoats.

Properly adjusted children, seem more to be testament of their parents character, than thing else. The difference between parents committed to the development of their children as proper human beings, rather using them as a mean to their own ends, like objects of their frustrations and disappointments.

[brewer]

What if you were born and raised in a tribe that considered torturing it's enemy's babies was considered normal behavior? How would you know any different?

The correct response is you wouldn't.

Such tribes generally do such acts based on false justifications, such as the children were curses etc.. To conceal wrongness of the act., and the innocence of the victim. Tribe member who recognize the lie, have recognized that such practices are morally wrong, and have opposed it as a result. Where did they learn that from? If the culture didn’t tell them it was wrong?

And yet they still tortured babies, from a learned and experienced behavior of others, false justification or not.