Um... I'm not talking about arbitrary properties. This 'for the greater good' is pretty much in the essence. This is agreed upon by more or less all people who actually understand and practice morality. When we judge a song to be 'objectively' good or bad we use criteria like has it got good rhythm, tone... ofcourse, these judgements only work when we share the same idea of what good rhythm is and if we value good rhythm and that will depend on our subjectivity. When we judge an action to be good we might use principles like altruism. The difference is, the moral principles are determined by facts about human nature rather than arbitrary taste. In otherwords, isn't this the ultimate exercise in strawmanning? Trying to make out morality is something absurd when everyone who actually claims to practice morality is telling you that it's something different? Even this is flawed... You agree that Mr White is wrong to fry a potato if his aim is to obtain a boiled egg. As humans we all naturally aim for happiness/contentment. (this is a hard face about our nature) To achieve this aim requires moral conduct. So the rightness and wrongness of morality does indeed hold from a universal perspective.
No. You seem to be making out that morality is something other than most people talk about it. We should act morally if morally is what helps us. I'm saying it is us that decide what actually is moral.
It is. But then again, so are alot of things. How many unreasoned beliefs do you think the average person holds.? I would have to imagine alot of beleifs go unresearched.... I think most of us know how alot of people view morality. That was never defended or denied. What was said, was that a christian morality was better than no morality. The fact is, morality in general, is what is being defended. I also don't see why the claims of adherents to certain systems of morality matter. Morality is needed regardless of those claims. That is the point. I for one don't believe that morality arose do to god/gods, religion..etc. I don't think it's do to any reason outside the nature and enviroment of any creature that exhibits those types of behaviors. I believe there is a natural underlying reason for morality arising. To be honest, rather that reason is acknowledged by those people you speak of or not, doesn't make much of a difference. It's still there. But anyway.... The point was, a christian morality is better than nothing. A reason why it's better than nothing, has been laid out for you. You have also been shown how a moral system could be objectively based. After all, you rejected the idea of morality based on the idea it could have no objective nature. A case has been made, and it points to an objective basis. Your defence to this seems to be what most people think? I thought we went over the idea truth isn't democracy. (P.S..The people you speak of, didn't create morality, they just adopted it.) I think it has been stated that what is moral, is based on our nature. In other words, there is a basis for the idea. It's not like choosing what shirt to wear. Murder isn't wrong just for the sake of being able to call it moraly wrong. It serves a purpose. There is an objective factor to the equation. You can't just label anything moral, alot of stuff needs to be considered. Human nature, environment..Etc... I see no reason to believe morality would have ever come about in the first place, if there wasn't some underlying reason. These behaviors didn't arise out of thin air, nor do I buy the grand coincidence angle, so where did moral behavior come from? Is it just a coincidence that morality just so happens to go in line with our nature? Where did moral behavior originate? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reading back through the thread, and I have to say, neither sides arguments are as blatantly obvious as we are making them out to be. I can see the subjective side to this (The limitations to the language we use in defining morality, and our inability to observe and apply without regard to cultural bias.) and the objective nature driving it.(Human nature, needs, and all that) I am sticking to the term objectively based morality because of this.
It's because human nature is silently assumed in the background. "You ought to eat something." is actually saying "If you're a human being then having human needs means you need food and seeing as you are such a human being then therefore you ought to eat something." Since most of that sentence was stating the blatantly obvious that did not need to be said, only the bit in bold is necessary. I know, most normal people aren't thinking in terms of 'needs' and 'desires'. Those are philosophical terms for a philosophical analysis. However, they are basically thinking the same thing in layman terms. Being immoral is bad for immoral person and all people affected by them. It is bad for everyone, including themselves, so they ought not to be like that.
I agree that our ideas of morality are based on out desires, but not that our desires are an objective justification for any action. I do not mean what we ought to do to achieve a specific goal, I mean what we actually "ought" to do; which goals we should try to achieve. The fact that you can name a goal and then detail a method of achieving it, does not mean you actually should do so. Morality is clearly about what we should do above and beyond individual goals. You may claim the best way to make friends is to be nice, therefore we "ought" to act nice. Someone else might claim that the best way of making enemies is to tread on their sandwich, therefore we "ought" to tread on people's sandwiches. By what we "ought" to do, we mean that we think should ber done in a situation. Now both of you seem to consider our desires to be the ultimate justification for any action. This will fulfill a desire, therefore we ought to do this. That is not a logical progression, unless you first admit that desires should be fulfilled. Until then it is as true as saying that this won't fulfill a desire, therefore we should do this. Now not everyone believes that something helping us is a good enough reason for us doing it, some people think that is trumped by our debt to God, or that helping others is as important as ourselves. We may all have desires and we may know how to filfill them, that does not mean that we "ought" to; there may be other standards by which right and wrong could be measured. Why must our desires be the only critereon by which are actions are measured?
It's very simple. You 'ought to do x' means that given that you desire a goal and x will help achieve this goal then you should do x. Remember what I said about human beings having a human nature with needs? There are some goals that are just an intrinsic part of human nature. Therefore they will be shared by all human beings. If someone says "you ought to x because it will help you achieve y" they are assuming that you want to achieve y. The 'oughts' in morality are to achieve goals that more or less all human beings naturally aim for. It is an objective fact about human beings.
I know some people believe we owe a debt to god. But on the other hand, you, me, and strafio, are atheist, we by default assume they are wrong. "I" believe their moral system was adopted, not invented by God. So, the question is, is there still a reason to be moral even though we find their premise for morality flawed? I along with others, say yes. There are objective facts pertaining to humans to support the idea of morality being not only useful, but in a lot of ways, needed. I also acknowledge that the majority of people don't bother to think about why they hold morals, or for that matter, the nature of what morality is. But in my opinion, that just shows how well the system works. I can't vouch for every seemingly random moral, nor am I going to try to. But the general idea is that certain needs are inherent in all humans, they are what drive certain moral positions. There is no logical reason why an entire species should ignore it's nature. This is why I believe morality is just something that naturally develops among social creatures, our system is just more complex due to our inteligence. To be honest, our ability to empathise is as good a reason for morality as any. But when you break morality down, it's just another tool...
Your whole argument relies on this axiom which is by no means self evident. Some people believe in obligation. Some people believe that the greater good is more important than the desires of an individual, so one "ought" to act against them for the good of the whole. You have given me no good reason as to why we ought to act in a way that helps us.
You're either talking about common people or philosophers. If you're talking about the common person then their 'ought' isn't committed to a philosophical position and is compatable with my explanation. If you're talking about philosophers then I would say that they are wrong. If they aren't wrong then you need to argue their case rather than simply cite the fact that they disagree with me. Well... we aim to act in a way that helps us so I guess it naturally follows that what we ought to do is act in a way that fullfills this aim. Perhaps you mean to ask why we ought to aim to act in a way that helps us? There's no 'ought' about it. It's a fact about human beings that they do aim to further their interests.
Why do I have the burden of proof? I am the one that does not believe that anything is objectively "right" or "wrong". You have announced that we "ought" do do whatever helps us as though it was self evident, even though there are many people that believe we ought to do some things that don't necessarily help us. It is up to you to show that we ought to act in a way that helps us, not me to show otherwise. Of course I've been asking why we should act in a way that help us this whole time. You now seem to be admitting that there is no reason why we should act in a way that helps us, we just do.
Your objection to my theory needs backing up. To say "well this person disagrees with you that morality is like that" does nothing. If what they say is worth anything then back it up. Give some examples. I'm willing to wager that either they will be part of fullfilling a need of sort or they will be foolhardy irrational actions. It's not an admission. It's what I've been holding from the very beginning. FACT - We aim to further our interests, whatever they might be. FACT - There are certain interests that more or less all people share. And pursuing these interests require a person to act morally. Perhaps I should make this important note here: What I have been arguing about here is about what moral facts are and what makes them true or false. I have not been making claims about what people are thinking of when they make moral judgements. Maybe they adhere to these guidelines intuitively, maybe their moral judgements are a bit off, anything could be going through their head and it would be irrelevent. We are talking about whether moral facts exist and what determines their truth and falsity. How people come to know moral facts is another topic altogether.
My objection is to the meaning you claim the word ought has. I gave several examples of things some people think we "ought" to do, that contradict what you claim the word "ought" means. Although the things they say may not be true, the sentence still makes sense. Some people believe we shouldn't use animals in medical tests. Others disagree. It is clear that both viewpoints do not use the same standard for judging right and wrong. Anti-vivisectionists obviously believe that some things are wrong, despite the fact that it may benefit us. If you agree that there is no logical reason why it is right to act in a way that helps us, how can you propose an objective system of morality on the basis that it helps us? You said yourself that there is no reason why we should act in a way that helps us.
It's not that they don't use the same standard of right and wrong. They are placing animals on the same lvl as people, they are simply using a different standard where the role of the animal is concerned. I thought the logical reason was the understanding it's part of our nature???? I mean, where is the logic in an entire species going against it's nature and failing as a result?
That's a pretty cool interpretation. The second part is also a very sweet way of thinking of it. My parents taught me as well that our creator made us all very unique (no matter who he or she may really be). I like the way you see God in your mind, very nice
So what if they're at the same level as people? Remeber, people don't have any innate rights, what is "right" is what helps us personally. I don't see how something being a part of our nature makes it right.
And this is the reason it's a subject with no absolute answer. Maybe animals are, maybe they aren't? It's a job for applied ethics... Yes, but it's a bit more universal than that. Murder is wrong for everyone, not just me or you. It's already been said that morality is placed on qualities that are inherent in all humans. Well, how would it be wrong? If our nature is to be social then logically there is a correct way to go about being social. For example, I wouldn't blow up my tribe if I need said tribe. If it's part of our nature to be social, wouldn't there be a correct way to go about it? (If (A) is part of your nature and (X) hinders (A) then it would logically follow that you don't do (X). Morality is large scale.) Our nature is neither wrong or right, in short, it just is, but there is a right way and wrong way in how we go about acting these things out. If our nature is the basis, then right and wrong (atleast where morality is concerned) will be determined by said nature..
There's several possibilities going on here. I can currently think of two: 1) They have misunderstood the deeper nature of morality. Although they know that we should attempt morality they don't fully understand why and this can lead them to errors on what to posit as a moral fact. This can lead them to 'oughts' that are completely irrelevent to our benefit and are therefore false. 2) They are using the moral ought as it should be used and genuinely believe that the moral rules they are advocating are to our benefit. Once again your argument seems to be: "Not everyone agrees with your idea of morality so that's a problem for you." It's only a problem if they have a good reason for disagreeing with me. Otherwise it's absolutely unimportant. Again, you've brought up a complex issue with several things to consider: 1) Morality as a whole is to our benefit. If you look at moral action's individually then the benefit isn't as obvious. A single action might seem like it is beneficial, but if it is immoral then it is likely that it is the sutble cause of a larger loss in the long run. Singular moral rules aren't obviously to our benefit. 2) An important part of morality is compassion towards others who are signalling pain. This naturally extends to the pain signals coming from animals. Moral rules aren't just about their effects on the external world, they are about the internal effects on your mind. An essential part of morality is treated hurt people with compassion. It is not psychologically easy to completely separate the pain signals of people from the pain signals of animals. If someone enjoys cruelty to animals then it suggests that pain signals do not affect them and therefore there is a serious deficit in their morality. Ofcourse, it is a lot more complicated than that, but that gives a an example of how morality, which is as a whole justified by it's benefits, naturally extends to animals. 3) Although "what helps society" seems to be the truth-maker of moral facts, this doesn't mean that everyone who practices morality recognises this. They might follow moral rules because they seem to work or out of a faith which is vindicated by the better quality of life they lead. So their morality is fairly solid but as some key points of meta-ethics are misunderstood they are vulnerable to mis-applying it. Nope. Absolutely wrong. Morality as a whole helps us personally. However, it is a holistic system which will involve rules that don't help us personally. Holistic means it works as a whole and we have to treat it as a whole. (i.e. just picking the bits that suits us would cause it to break down) If the moral system we have logically requires animals to have rights then unless we find a better system, that is the one that should follow. The reason why we ought to subscribe to such a system is once again rooted in our needs. It is better for us to accept the system as a whole rather than to reject it. No I didn't. I said that there is no reason why we should aim to act in a way that helps us. That we aim to act in away that helps us is a fact about our nature. Because of that fact, there is a reason why we should act in a way that helps us.
So, someone capable of animal cruelty is likely to be capable of being cruel to people? Or is it just that they may be more likely to be immoral if something doesn't personally suit their interest? Is this the general idea, or am I reading it wrong? I figured if someone was doing medical research they were in some way attempting to help others. I geuss I assumed this doesn't mean they enjoy hurting animals, rather they hold our species to a higher importance. Where as the people against it don't see it this way, they place them on the same level and our benefit isn't a good enough reason for the testing.
Both I guess. The are both ways that a persons lack of morality concerning animals reflects indicates a lack of morality concerning people also. It's not that I'm limiting animal rights to this as this argument is about reacting to their pain signals rather than genuinely caring for their welfare. This was just an example of how our morality can naturally extend towards animals. I'm sure there's much better ones out there too. Yeah. I agree. I saw Lewis' example as questioning how "what helps us" could lead us to posit any rights for animals at all, so I addressed that rather than the arguments of the animal rights protesters. Having said that, how we should relate to animals is a complex issue of applied ethics and shouldn't really affect the argument of meta ethics at hand. I guess we had to show to a degree that "what's good for society" doesn't necessarily leave the issue of animal rights untouched.
