So you're suggesting that critters have morals, S? — praxis

:roll:

It's currently believed that the amygdala doesn't play the as big a role in human emotion as they once thought it did. Also, according to constructed emotion theory, culture plays a significant role, not unlike that in moral development. — praxis

Yeah, thanks for sharing your opinion, but I think I'll do my own readings on the matter.

Brains and emotions are insufficient for morals.

So do you agree or not?

Brains and emotions are insufficient for morals.

So do you agree or not? — creativesoul

You're being one of those people who want a direct answer instead of a more intelligent answer where you have to think about the problem with your question. Do you understand the problem with how you're responding? I didn't spell it out, but if you think about it, maybe you could figure it out from my previous reply without my having to do so.

Ad homs aren't acceptable.

Ad homs aren't acceptable. — creativesoul

I agree, but nor are poor responses in my book. There's always room for improvement. Now, do you understand my objection, or do you need me to explain it to you?

I was making that connection myself, influenced in part by Hume, who made the connection between morality and its emotional source. — S

Ok. I understand where you are coming from now. I must have missed when you mentioned Hume earlier.

Unfortunately, Hume concluded that our emotions are a matter of conditioning. Hence there is no free will, only the last and strongest passion, as determined by one's past impressions. Hume's position nullifies the possibility of ethical responsibility - and I would argue that free will and responsibility are necessary factors of ethical existence.

Neurobiology then makes the connection between emotions and their neurobiological source. — S

This coheres with Hume's ethical philosophy. But it does nothing to make the ethical a matter of personal responsibility or free will. Rather, it reduces morality to nothing but the stimulation of pleasure and pain responses in the autonomic nervous system. If this is the case, then there really is no morality, and consequently, no source of morals.

I have the hunch that there is more to it than this.

Nicely put! This is precisely Kant's problem with Hume's compatibilist stance on free will and moral responsibility, unless I am mistaken.

@praxis, @Merkwurdichliebe, at least we're getting somewhere now. You've given me food for thought. Shame it took fifteen pages.

Simpleton or Oblivion, pick a side.

I think if it takes 80 pages, we should keep going.

Do it!!!...introduce the categorical imperative...you instigator you.

I think if it takes 80 pages, we should keep going. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, for me, this is a good point to take a step back and think things more thoroughly, whereas prior to that, the replies to me were such that they were able to be dealt with with a quick and easy reply. However, with a few recent replies, if there are faults, they aren't as glaringly obvious.

I agree, we should have taken a step back probably 8 pages ago.

NNNNOOOO!!!!

:joke:

I agree, we should have taken a step back probably 8 pages ago. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, that would've premature. You needed more time to be guided in the right direction.

You're welcome. :grin: :up:

Your the best...always looking out for me. Me so happy :cry:

Shame it took fifteen pages. — S

That’s rich coming from you. If just your ad hominems in the topic were deleted, not to mention the thickets of obfuscation, it would probably shave-off a whole page.

Thickets upon thickets.

You're being one of those people who want a direct answer instead of a more intelligent answer where you have to think about the problem with your question. Do you understand the problem with how you're responding? I didn't spell it out, but if you think about it, maybe you could figure it out from my previous reply without my having to do so. — S

No thanks.

Speak clearly and sensibly(without self contradiction and/or equivocating terms) and there's no need for me to guess. Logical possibility/entailment does not constitute adequate justificatory ground/warrant on my view. I could later surely arrive at more logically possible scenarios than I can currently imagine based upon what little you've claimed. I've no good reason to assent to one anymore than others. I mean they would all be about what you have not clearly stated.

Now, do you understand my objection, or do you need me to explain it to you? — S

What proposition/claim/assertion/thought/belief/statement are you're objecting to?

creativesoul

Simpleton or Oblivion, pick a side. — Merkwurdichliebe

When it comes to questions in this context... simple is best.

:up:

Look, if you two think that I was suggesting that worms, dogs, and critters are moral agents then you need try harder. A lot harder.

Claims about morals evolved to claims about moral agents...

Claims about morals evolved to claims about moral agents... — creativesoul

Yes, and where did that stem from?

So you're suggesting that critters have morals, S? — praxis

Brains are insufficient for morals. Worms have brains. Worms have no morals.

Emotion is insufficient for morals. Dogs have emotions. Dogs have no morals. — creativesoul

I guess we'll never know.

(Worms, dogs, and critters don't have morals because they're not moral agents because their brains aren't advanced enough. There, spelt it out all nice and clear for you).

rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from — hachit

Most likely from the habitat in which individuals grow

Claims about morals evolved to claims about moral agents...
— creativesoul — S

Yes, and where did that stem from? — S

So you're suggesting that critters have morals, S? — praxis

Brains are insufficient for morals. Worms have brains. Worms have no morals.

Emotion is insufficient for morals. Dogs have emotions. Dogs have no morals. — creativesoul

Worms, dogs, and critters don't have morals because they're not moral agents because their brains aren't advanced enough. There, spelt it out all nice and clear for you). — S

Clear enough. You wrote "moral agents". No one else did. Nice prima facie example of moving the goalposts.

That's unacceptable. And to think... I was going to let that go until you kept editing your way into admission. At any rate... You presuppose(in your new goalpost) that morals are existentially dependent upon moral agency. They are not.

Not all creatures capable of forming, holding, and/or otherwise having moral thought/belief are also capable of contemplating what steps to take; what to do next; what they think is the best action to take given the circumstances that they find themselves within at that particular time.

That is moral agency.

Morals are thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Not all thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour is adequate for moral agency. Moral agency requires thinking about one's own pre-existing moral thought/belief(morals). The former(moral agency) is always existentially dependent upon some form of the latter(pre-existing moral belief;morals).

Some more complex moral thought/belief(morals) are informed by and/or arrived at by more complex and/or critical thinking about one's pre-existing morals(moral thought/belief). Some of which would be the ones arrived at by virtue of complex moral discourse such as the one we're having. All philosophical positions regarding ethics/morality are exactly such.

Having moral agency isn't that complicated. Having morals even less so. The aim here is the source of morals, which I take to be the source of all morals.

In order to be able to carefully consider one's choices regarding which is the best thing to do next(regardless of the complexity of one's worldview) - in order to have moral agency - s/he/they must discriminate between choices(imagine/recognize different possible behaviours) and then decide which is the best given the circumstances. Moral agency arises from pre-existing moral thought/belief(morals).

In the simplest terms...

That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else. That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to that something else. Some morals exist prior to moral agency. Some morals do not. All that exist prior to moral agency are not existentially dependent upon moral agency. Moral agency is neither equivalent to morals nor the source of all morals.

"Aren't advanced enough"...

What matters here is what - exactly - counts as brains/emotions that are "advanced enough"? That is the line between a creature having morals and not.

Brains and emotions are not enough for morals.

Clear enough. You wrote "moral agents". No one else did. — creativesoul

Yep, you didn't use the word. I suppose that gets you off the hook then. I haven't got the patience to be dealing with uncharitable nonsense about worms, dogs and critters as though it bears any relevance whatsoever to what I was getting at, and nor do I wish to spend my time unduly arguing and going around in circles about what you did wrong; and I especially don't want to see anymore of your usual repetitive gobbledygook about "that which exists prior to" etc., etc., so I'm going to leave it at that.

And I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation on how the big bang is the source of everything. What that tells us about the source of morals remains to be seen. — Merkwurdichliebe

The big bang is one of the causes of everything, isn't it? You can't have humans if the big bang didn't happen.

So why would that be any less the source of morality, per the way that you're using the term "source," than any other cause you're suggesting, where the cause isn't itself morality?