• god must be atheist
    5.1k
    (Some members here objected to the conversational style of my earlier post, and to its length. I promised to shorten it and make it contain fewer supporting examples, and shorter explanations on how the connected parts of the reasoning fit. Here is the shorter, more compact version. The lengthy, overly wordy post can be found here:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach
    )


    For the purposes of this post, I define the trigger-response system or situation as this: from time to time a person encounters a dilemma of how to behave. The trigger is the situation that necessitates the decision making. The response is the individual’s actual behaviour ensuing from the trigger.
    Morality is one of the deciding factors in dilemmas how to behave in some trigger-response situations.
    -------------------------
    Morality eludes objective definition. Its definition relies on subjective experience, it avoids an objective definition.

    All moral acts could be reduced to “doing good” save for the “should” part. I.e. doing good is moral if the morally acting person does it out of conviction or compulsion due to “I should do this”, and avoids acts that he or she feels he or she should not do.

    There are two trigger-response situations in which the morally acting person finds himself to act morally.

    One is what I call involuntary moral acting; the other one is what I call acquired moral acting.

    An example of involuntary moral acting is saving one’s child from death or injury, even at the risk of damage to one’s own well-being, or of one’s own death.

    An example of acquired moral acting is one’s own aversion to theft.

    Involuntary moral acts are found to be unchanged in the widely different cultures of the human population; regardless of religion, race, creed, education level, gender / sex, etc.

    Acquired moral acts do vary from culture to culture.

    There is no subset of humanity of normal people who would violate the involuntary moral acts. By “normal people” I mean capable people physically and mentally; those who don’t suffer from debilitating challenges, including physical, emotional or mental.

    Acquired moral acts, on the other hand, can be and are accepted or not accepted, and violated or not, according to level and strength of the acceptance of suggested required behaviour by the individual in response to prescribed triggers.

    Involuntary moral acts are pervasive among all societies, unchanged in required behaviour to the same triggers.

    Acquired moral acts are hugely diverse in the triggers (circumstances that compel moral behaviour) and the actual reaction to them.

    Both moral (involuntary, and acquired, latter if accepted by the individual) codes bring rewards if followed, and punishment for failure to follow. The reward and punishment both cases originate in the individual’s psyche; no outside influence needs to be exerted. Involuntary morals bring on a much stronger emotional punishment or reward, then the reward/punishment received what acquired morals bring on, for fulfilling of failing to fulfil the suggested moral behaviour for given triggers.

    I claim that due to the sharp contrast of defined differences that can be found without exception, between the trigger-response couplets in involuntary and in acquired morals, the two systems are separate.

    This conclusion in the above sentence is the crux of my paper. No proof provided... this is a theory. Partially substantiated by the supporting elements in the foregoing. My theory has a pragmatic service function. Once it is accepted by a moral theorist that the theory may be right, then all of a sudden moral arguments fall into place.

    Two new definitions are borne from the theory: one is a definition of involuntary morality, the other, the definition of acquired morality.

    Thus: Involuntary moral actions include those trigger-response mechanisms, in which the person gets rewarded for fulfilling the required response to the trigger with an overwhelming inner satisfaction; or else he is punished by debilitating guilt, should he fail to fulfil the requirement; and the trigger-response mechanisms are pervasive across the species.

    Acquired moral actions include those trigger-response mechanisms which society prescribes for its subjects, or human members; the prescriptions may vary in part or in whole from culture to culture; the person is capable of accepting and internalizing this moral prescription, or else he is able to reject it. Once internalized, the trigger-response situation rewards or punishes the person with inner satisfaction, or with inner guilt, according whether he fulfilled or failed to fulfill the moral response required.
  • praxis
    6.2k
    Why is this so easily ignored, Atheist God?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Oh, it's easy to explain, praxis. I think my theory congeals nicely and neatly, but from the point of view of you guys (both genders and the spectrum) I appear to be a monkey screamin' and jumpin' up-and-down in its cage, trying to get attention.

    I think I painted a pretty accurate picture of this.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k
    Meanders and needs re-formatting. A distinct thesis statement at the beginning might help - you only mention the "crux" of your paper halfway through.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Thank you, ToothyMaw! That was a useful comment by you. Thanks.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.2k


    Cool that you can take criticism!
  • Cheshire
    1k
    ↪praxis Oh, it's easy to explain, praxis. I think my theory congeals nicely and neatly, but from the point of view of you guys (both genders and the spectrum) I appear to be a monkey screamin' and jumpin' up-and-down in its cage, trying to get attention.god must be atheist

    General Advice
    I think you've identified the resistance and like you say it is the different points of a view. Statements that you may take for granted become roadblocks to the breath takingly critical audience that emerges on a philosophy forum. I would recommend removing as many roadblocks as possible and simply try to get the reader to understand what it is you see is most novel regarding your approach.

    What I think your main point is in the OP
    You believe that humans experience two types of moral experiences. I would agree, because I think humans are in fact composed of two minds that argue over competing needs. One type is a survival resource or danger response system and the other is an emotional empathetic system. You have noted that one is more automatic than the other and I also agree with this; because having a danger response system that does a lot of ruminating would be a liability. Further evidence could be drawn from the fact humans also have two distinct nervous system states. If this part is the basis for your thinking then start here; it's a neat idea with some science that makes it plausible.

    The roadblocks I would remove and reintroduce as needed.
    Morality eludes objective definition. Its definition relies on subjective experience, it avoids an objective definition.god must be atheist
    This point is a thread and half itself and it's not critical to understanding what you are trying to say. Remember we aren't proving anything at this point, but rather laying out what might be.
    Involuntary moral acts are pervasive among all societies, unchanged in required behaviour to the same triggers.god must be atheist
    Any universal statements become a target; the reflex to argue is strong with this crowd. Because arguing is fun.
    There is no subset of humanity of normal people who would violate the involuntary moral acts.god must be atheist
    Another universal.

    Universal statements are good because they imply a testable idea. One counter-example and the theory is busted. It's an under appreciated honest inclusion that will stop discourse in its tracks.

    No proof provided... this is a theory.god must be atheist
    I would open with this and maybe change theory to idea. An idea is just something to be understood. A theory entails tests and competition with other preferred theories.

    Let me know if I can clarify or elaborate on anything. I do think you have a novel track that is interesting enough to base a discussion on.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    An idea is just something to be understood. A theory entails tests and competition with other preferred theories.Cheshire
    Thanks, this is a good point. I thought a theory was something that has not enough proof for acceptance, but enough evidence and not enough mistakes / errors / wrong ideas in it to reject it outright as fantasy or fiction.

    I hesitate still to call it an idea. An idea is a simple thing, like a function; a theory is more complex, like a program. I think the paper describes more complexity than a simple reaction.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Involuntary moral acts are pervasive among all societies, unchanged in required behaviour to the same triggers.
    — god must be atheist
    Any universal statements become a target; the reflex to argue is strong with this crowd. Because arguing is fun.
    There is no subset of humanity of normal people who would violate the involuntary moral acts.
    — god must be atheist
    Another universal.
    Cheshire
    You are absolutely right. Universals are challenging in and by themselves. I did not want to elaborate, but I can't see a parent not dive into water (if he or she can swim) to save his kid in the frothing brime. Or I can't imagine a cat who would not dare a raging fire to bring her kittens to safety. Or I can't imagine a wolf mother who would not fight to the death to save her cubs from other predators.

    This would have made the paper wordy though, for those who complained about it being rambling and unfocussed.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Morality eludes objective definition. Its definition relies on subjective experience, it avoids an objective definition.
    — god must be atheist
    This point is a thread and half itself and it's not critical to understanding what you are trying to say.
    Cheshire
    This is the "comparison" with other moral theories you said I should have done to show this idea, if you like, as a theory.

    I think I did not elaborate on this either, because of the wordiness problem.

    I don't know if you have enough time or inclination or interest in reading the long version as well. Some, but perhaps not all, your issues are hopefully taken care of it in the long version. I think. I wish you would read it, because your points are right on and well supported; your criticism is honest and not meant to deflate; and mostly they make a lot of sense. I can't disagree with them, but I hope I did a decent job in explaining why what you find missing is not there.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment