Simon Paynton

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

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

Let me know when “ethics” comes up with something that ordinary people can use – something that religion has been doing for 2600 years.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Does it mean the same as “must-ness”?

Yes.

this common structure

Cooperation.  Either within groups, or between groups.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 because this is what the environment was to create this particular evolved fitness phenomena.

If the environment was different ( what determines the environment are physical processes) then a different type evolved fitness phenomena would arise potentially with no cooperation.

The evolutionary hypothesis is that human morality only arose once the human family tree left the forests, moved into the savannah, and the intelligent social creatures were forced to begin cooperating.  Interestingly, other creatures (like baboons) already lived in the savannah, but they are not intelligent enough to develop a morality of cooperation and fairness.  They probably have norms of expected behaviour.

If that never happened then there potentially would be no humans.

Then there would be no human morality.

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 them”, which is very much like fairness.  We have a duty to be fair (i.e., a sense of duty to be fair) as well as a duty to fulfil other ideal standards – because in making an agreement to collaborate, we form a cooperative unit, and agree to help everyone fairly in the cooperative unit.

Virtue, as Ayn Rand put it, is a policy for achieving one’s values or goals.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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, if everyone thinks something must be adhered to, then it must.  What happens if someone fails to adhere to it?  That’s their free choice.

So, to summarize, being human on planet earth is an eternal objective fact.

I deny that. It’s simply not true and is, additionally, beside the point.

It’s true, unless some of us are snails living on Mars.  It’s entirely the point, since it means that we all share commonalities in our existence, and these commonalities can plausibly give rise to at least a common structure for morality.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 phenomena:  1) the pressure to thrive, survive and reproduce; 2) empathy; 3) cooperation; 4) physical disgust; 5) primate mate-guarding.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 can take what they want from others.  Does that make anti-social behaviour an ethical principle?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 universal moral principles, that’s much more plausible.  But the sub-set chosen by @unseen is set up to fail.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Not finding a single human society that agreed or disagreed with any moral law doesn’t prove (or falsify) it as a moral truth. A moral truth cannot be verified or falsified like a scientific law.

Yes, even though I agree with you, I will still put the other side:  would not a universal principle be a good candidate for a moral fact? What’s the difference?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Not finding a single human society that agreed or disagreed with any moral law doesn’t prove (or falsify) it as a moral truth. A moral truth cannot be verified or falsified like a scientific law.

Use your eyes to read the words I have written, about 20 times:

For the 19th time, I agree with you. I’m just putting a point of view that some people have. I am not one of them. I do not think this.

Kant’s magnum opus on morality

Why would I read this?  It’s a failure.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

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 factual, eternal, objective, necessarily existing basis for our moral beliefs…

There is.  It’s called being a human being on planet Earth.

The progress moral philosophy has made for many philosophers is the notion that morality is a human invention serving very human psychological needs.

That’s all well and good, and I agree with this.  But the reason I see it as largely a failure is that it hasn’t put anything useful into the hands of ordinary people.  Religion, on the other hand, is stuffed full of moral philosophy that ordinary people can use.  That’s where religion succeeds and philosophy has so far failed.

Traditional moral philosophy turns itself inside out studying something that it acknowledges it’s never seen: actual morality.  I’ve spent 8 years studying actual morality.  I think that’s a more tidy way round.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

No. To assert as much is the logical fallacy called “composition.”

How can you assert, therefore, that there are no universal morals?  How would you design a study to show that there are or are not?  I would do it the same way the people in the study did, using a representative sample of the world’s societies.  I would have a longer list of universal principles to look for.

Were a prohibition on murder to be a fact, to deny it would be an absurdity like denying that water is wet.

For the 19th time, I agree with you.  I’m just putting a point of view that some people have.  I am not one of them.  I do not think this.

I think Davis has suggest you background yourself a bit in moral philosophy. I agree.

The “background” of moral philosophy has not produced much of any use.  I’ve availed myself of it where necessary.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I agree with you about “moral facts” such as “murder is wrong”: I think they don’t exist, too.

They are, if true, simply factual observations about the particular cultures they studied.

So, if the cultures are representative of the whole world, are these universal morals?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

The cave paintings are from 20,000 years ago, domestication happened maybe 10,000 years ago.

[Author]

Posts