Evolution of morality

[lilphil1989]

Rather than "moral code" I should have said "code of conduct", to avoid confusion. The code of conduct would be based on the fundamental principle. But the question for me is; is it possible to identify a fundamental principle of morality? I'm not yet convinced that it is not.

You're playing semantic games now .

The concept of a fundamental principle of morality is logically unsound because it is both fundamental (because you have called it so) and not fundamental (because it is based on your personal morality, or some kind of "average human morality") simultaneously.

Using my earlier example: "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist," as a starting point. Can anyone refute that that is a (or possibly "the") fundamental principle of morality?

Suppose I were to add a corollary:
"All humans beings have the right to peacefully co-exist, except those with green eyes, who are inferior, and should be subjugated at every oppurtunity"

How could you refute that without reference to your own ideas of morality?

You can't, and that's the whole point.

[corndog36]

Rather than "moral code" I should have said "code of conduct", to avoid confusion. The code of conduct would be based on the fundamental principle. But the question for me is; is it possible to identify a fundamental principle of morality? I'm not yet convinced that it is not.

You're playing semantic games now .

I'm trying not to. A code of conduct is, basically, a set of rules we choose to live by. An example would be; "I will not commit murder". Even if it were legal, I wouldn't do it because I believe it is immoral. In order to make that judgment I need an underlying principle. Why is it immoral to commit murder? I think we generally do this intuitively, without consciously identifying the principle. If I can identify a single principle that informs all of my moral decisions, that would be my fundamental principle of morality. If everyone agreed on a single principle, (which they clearly do not), that would be a universal principle of morality.

Using my earlier example: "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist," as a starting point. Can anyone refute that that is a (or possibly "the") fundamental principle of morality?

Suppose I were to add a corollary:
"All humans beings have the right to peacefully co-exist, except those with green eyes, who are inferior, and should be subjugated at every oppurtunity"

How could you refute that without reference to your own ideas of morality?

You can't, and that's the whole point.

Possibly. But I would need clarification on one point; Are you willing to stipulate to my definition of the word "moral"? If so, I can say that your corollary is unfair, therefore unjust, therefore immoral by definition. If you are not willing to stipulate, then my definition is just my "idea" of morality and my argument is clearly circular. If we cannot define the word "moral", then any discussion of morality becomes an exercise in mental masturbation.

[lilphil1989]

Possibly. But I would need clarification on one point; Are you willing to stipulate to my definition of the word "moral"? If so, I can say that your corollary is unfair, therefore unjust, therefore immoral by definition. If you are not willing to stipulate, then my definition is just my "idea" of morality and my argument is clearly circular. If we cannot define the word "moral", then any discussion of morality becomes an exercise in mental masturbation.

But your definiton is not a definition of the word "moral". It's a definition of a particular moral code.

From dictionary.com:
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

I'm happy to work with this definition if you are.

[corndog36]

But your definiton is not a definition of the word "moral". It's a definition of a particular moral code.

From dictionary.com:
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

I'm happy to work with this definition if you are.

This is a common definition, but it is too broad to be of use here. I'll try to explain my thinking.

It seems to me that in order to make a moral judgment, (distinguish between right and wrong) I need a moral principle upon which to base that judgment. Likewise with a code of conduct, I need a principle upon which to base those rules. I can't use the definition you sited to describe a "moral" principle, because it is circular. I need a more specific definition as it applies to this particular usage.

My definition is derivative, so you won't find it worded that way in a dictionary, but I think that level of specificity is necessary to define the term "moral principle".

Arguing semantics can be frustrating and often pointless, so let me explain why I find this discussion intriguing. I have always perceived my moral principle intuitively. I was always able to apply it without trying to express it. The thread about moral parsimony got me thinking about why my principle seems to work in all situations, (100% parsimony), while others don't. I'm not saying that mine is right and any other is wrong, but I am asking that question.

I think that our understanding of morality is evolving toward a fundamental principle of right and wrong. One that if universally accepted, (totally unrealistic in the foreseeable future), would allow us all to peacefully co-exist. So I'm curious if others agree that that is the direction we are heading, and if so can we identify that principle? I say yes, and possibly yes, respectively.

[lilphil1989]

This is a common definition, but it is too broad to be of use here. I'll try to explain my thinking.

It seems to me that in order to make a moral judgment, (distinguish between right and wrong) I need a moral principle upon which to base that judgment. Likewise with a code of conduct, I need a principle upon which to base those rules. I can't use the definition you sited to describe a "moral" principle, because it is circular. I need a more specific definition as it applies to this particular usage.

My definition is derivative, so you won't find it worded that way in a dictionary, but I think that level of specificity is necessary to define the term "moral principle".

You seem to be missing the point that defining the word moral is not the same as defining a particular moral principle.

To give an analogy (not perfect I realise, but good enough to be useful): defining the word gravity is not the same as defining the force that exists in Newton's theory of gravity.

Arguing semantics can be frustrating and often pointless, so let me explain why I find this discussion intriguing. I have always perceived my moral principle intuitively. I was always able to apply it without trying to express it. The thread about moral parsimony got me thinking about why my principle seems to work in all situations, (100% parsimony), while others don't. I'm not saying that mine is right and any other is wrong, but I am asking that question.

Your principle only works in terms of your moral code. In terms of mine (anti-green eyes), your principle is an abomination

Asking which moral principle is right and which are wrong is an ill-defined question, because there is no objective way to measure "rightness".

I think that our understanding of morality is evolving toward a fundamental principle of right and wrong. One that if universally accepted, (totally unrealistic in the foreseeable future), would allow us all to peacefully co-exist. So I'm curious if others agree that that is the direction we are heading, and if so can we identify that principle? I say yes, and possibly yes, respectively.

Maybe, it's not too much a stretch to think that at some point in the future, it is possible that all human beings will have agreed on a moral code (if only because one group kills everyone that disagrees with that code).

The particular code that is decided on, however, would not be unique and could only be considered fundamental in the sense of being axiomatic.