Banden

Unseen wrote:
Does it mean the same as “must-ness”?

Yes.

this common structure

Cooperation.  Either within groups, or between groups.

Forgive me for giving up on the usual quotation structure and using a you said and I say sort of approach. Additionally, I think I’m done with this discussion.

Unseen wrote:
a principle that is so widely held that everyone agrees it must always be followed. (I can’t think of one, but just for the sake of argument…) Does it follow ipso facto tha…[Read more]

That may be so, but this is the version that is actually used by people.

How do you know that Simon. You are virtually illiterate in all things ethics.

Davis wrote:
That depends. There are multiple utilitarian systems that would not be characterized as such.

That may be so, but this is the version that is actually used by people.  It links very well with the rest of an evolutionary framework, and what’s more, represents a general formula for how to behave.

Karuna wrote:
Appeal to Nature is an argument and informal fallacy where something is believed to be good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. Evolution and biology are non-moral.

I agree, but evolution and biology give rise to all kinds of things, including moral psychology.

In this current universe cooperation in humans exist…[Read more]

Utilitarianism can be reframed as “all those affected by my actions are to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them”,

That depends. There are multiple utilitarian systems that would not be characterized as such.

Deontological means duties, right?

That is a gross oversimplification. Pick up a book and read it…please.

I’m with Hume: morality is an evolved psychological matter.  I think Kant went wrong by trying to insist it’s rational and moreover, absolute.

Hume’s writings on ethics are vague and are not well developed. Kant’s works were, in part, a response to the many problems with both Hume writings. Kant only talks about absolute “within” the moral syst…[Read more]

In my opinion

Appeal to Nature is an argument and informal fallacy where something is believed to be good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.

Evolution and biology  are non-moral.

( It’s not in the same category as morals)

It’s a category mistake to equate the two.

In this current universe cooperation in humans  exist b…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Deontological … utilitarian … Virtue ethics

Deontological means duties, right?

All of these come into play in human morality, and in fact in an evolutionary framework, fit together perfectly.

Utilitarianism can be reframed as “all those affected by my actions are to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
a principle that is so widely held that everyone agrees it must always be followed. (I can’t think of one, but just for the sake of argument…) Does it follow ipso facto that it actually must be adhered to by all people under every circumstance?

That’s the nature of normativity or ought-ness – it exists in the minds of people.  So,…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Hume and Kant

I’m with Hume: morality is an evolved psychological matter.  I think Kant went wrong by trying to insist it’s rational and moreover, absolute.

As an evolved psychological matter, we can investigate it from an evolutionary standpoint.  I think that modern morality rests on four or five evolved p…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
I’m not saying that the study proves universal principles, but it has found some good candidates.

It also comes down to the question, how many people have to agree with a principle to make it a principle?  Anti-social people believe they can take what they want from others.  Does that make anti-social behaviour an ethical pri…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Unseen wrote: Any further “studies” would be superfluous and gratuitous. It’s been established factually that different societies have different moral codes. I’m not the one making an extraordinary claim here. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

That’s a simplistic cop-out.

Who is promoting simplistic id…[Read more]

It also comes down to the question, how many people have to agree with a principle to make it a principle? Anti-social people believe they can take what they want from others. Does that make anti-social behaviour an ethical principle?

What a moral principle is depends entirely on the moral system. Deontological systems generate entirely different…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Unseen wrote: Any further “studies” would be superfluous and gratuitous. It’s been established factually that different societies have different moral codes. I’m not the one making an extraordinary claim here. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That’s a simplistic cop-out. there absolutely must be some…

[Read more]

Hume and Kant both believe that philosophy should dig beneath the surface of morality and present a theory of its foundation. When it comes to morality’s foundation, they seem to agree on two things. First, morality’s foundation cannot be located in religion. Second, it cannot be found in mind-independent facts about the world. Yet they dis…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
That would just be anthropological documentation of human behaviour.

I.e., human morality.  I’m not saying that the study proves universal principles, but it has found some good candidates.

It also comes down to the question, how many people have to agree with a principle to make it a principle?  Anti-social people believe they c…[Read more]

When people say “objective morality exists”, what they usually mean is “my morals are objectively true”.  So, they are confounding what is psychologically true for them, with objective truth.  I think that at heart is the problem they face.

I agree with *everyone* that “moral truth” is always going to be unproveable either way.

As for u…[Read more]

I think Simon you are using the correspondence theory of truth. In a basic way it means what you believe is true can be proven by finding out the corresponding empirical fact in the world.

For example if you think that the Pyramids are in Egypt. Then if you go there and see them then what you believe corresponds to truth.

However there are…[Read more]