autonomous moral codes — god must be atheist
First problem: your autonomous moral code theory is still voluntary. Animals, including people, do not always save their young, neither do we necessarily feel any guilt over not saving them. So there is no actual autonomous moral code, although I can see why the idea has appeal. Without the concept of autonomous morality your premise is bankrupt. — Book273
However, providing general guidelines (always try for maximal Good) will be much more productive. — Book273
according to my theory, the total lack of ability to feel guilty is a mutation.Third problem: Some of us feel no guilt. — Book273
We can and have made reasonable approximations. Being imperfect is not the same as without value.Since the two systems are now viewed, as per my treatise here, as similar but with also some nonequivalent elements or features of operation, obviously and in a logical way, not one system of philosophy can be found that applies to both equally. Hence, moral questions will never be subjected to a single, all-encompassing evaluation (and repair) system, since the amorphous nature of the acquired moral codes and the rigid system of the autonomous moral codes make that wholly impossible. — god must be atheist
I don't think dispensing with several thousand years worth of inquiry is justified because we can sort moral issues into two categories. — Cheshire
We can and have made reasonable approximations. Being imperfect is not the same as without value. — Cheshire
You may be nostalgic about Kant and others, and rightfully so... their theories have become in one fell swoop archaic, inaccurate, should I say useless. This is not something that needs to be justified, I don't think. It is something that changes an entire industry of thinking: thinking about morality. — god must be atheist
Besides, Kant already did by identifying the difference in nature versus civilized context for moral decisions and he was tossed a sunder in the conclusion. You by proxy threw out your own idea. — Cheshire
I hope to have illustrated to you, dear audience, that there is no hard-and-fast resolution among people what precisely is the active ingredient in a moral act. — god must be atheist
Besides, Kant already did by identifying the difference in nature versus civilized context for moral decisions and he was tossed a sunder in the conclusion. You by proxy threw out your own idea. — Cheshire
Well, I've got a little philosophy cheat sheet. It says that if you think you've solved the entirety of a philosophical sub-category based on a single unrevised document then you are probably wrong — Cheshire
Some folks swear by a plumb-line, some by the way water finds its own level, and yet others by the illumination of coherent light produced by a lazar. Have I convinced anyone that there is no hard and fast resolution about what is the active ingredient in a straight line? — unenlightened
Another that has been solved is which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg - evolutionary speaking.There has been at least one other issue in philosophy that has been solved: Zeno's paradox of the hare and the turtle (the hare will never catch the turtle ... like heck it won't.) — god must be atheist
Sure we do. Goals is the feature. If you didn't have goals what would morality be? Those that help realize your goals are good, those that inhibit them are bad. We even label events not caused by any humans, that either inhibit or help achieve our goals as "good" or "bad" events. People or events that have no impact on your goals are not considered to fall into the territory of ethics.but we can't actually safely and without any doubt in our minds decide what feature in an act makes it moral, immoral or amoral. — god must be atheist
but we can't actually safely and without any doubt in our minds decide what feature in an act makes it moral, immoral or amoral.
— god must be atheist
Sure we do. Goals is the feature. If you didn't have goals what would morality be? Those that help realize your goals are good, those that inhibit them are bad. — Harry Hindu
What if your goal is to enslave half of mankind, make their lives miserable, painful and their spirits broken, for the benefit of the other half of mankind? — god must be atheist
It's not qualifiying what the goals should be, but whether any goal has a moral property of good or bad (goals are more than just being good or bad) in some sense independent of the person, or group, with the goal in question. Enslaving mankind and freeing mankind are different goals. Whether they are good or bad is something different, and is seems to always depend on the person's, or group's, other goals.Goals? This is a goal. To enslave half of mankind.
You have to qualify now what those goals should or must be. And ay, there is the rub. That is precisely what the debate has been for thousands of years, with no end in sight. — god must be atheist
You have to qualify now what those goals should or must be. And ay, there is the rub. That is precisely what the debate has been for thousands of years, with no end in sight.
— god must be atheist
It's not qualifiying what the goals should be, but whether any goal has a moral property of good or bad (goals are more than just being good or bad) in some sense independent of the person, or group, with the goal in question. Enslaving mankind and freeing mankind are different goals. Whether they are good or bad is something different, and is seems to always depend on the person's, or group's, other goals. — Harry Hindu
Y’all are struggling with complexity here!
GOOD: That which decreases pain and suffering (which we all inately recognize pain in others from instinct), both in magnitude and numbers (number of individuals).
EVIL: Vice versus.
Ex: Catholic no birth control policy - increases poverty (suffering) and decreases the value of each individual. EVIL
Now that wasn’t so hard was it? — Trey
Obviously to a Nazi, killing Jews was innately moral. To a non-Nazi, killing Jews for this belief is innately immoral. The same act. Good and Bad. — god must be atheist
Why get into this messy material as an example for your rather uncomplicated idea? — Tom Storm
The author will demonstrate why ethics has been an elusive philosophical concept. The great ethicists, from classical Greek to seventeenth- and nineteenth century European thinkers, to present day philosophers, talk about morality and ethics as if it were a probably very clear and well-defined concept. They talk about it as if it were a given that everyone understands what it is. The author will shine light on why this assumption is false and wrong. Then the author will attempt to show how ethics can be easily defined and understood to be what it is by introducing an evolutionary concept of ethics, which distinguishes between autonomous ethics and socially learned ethics. — god must be atheist
This is poorly written and one sentence doesn’t even make sense (italics). — I like sushi
This is an act that no human would say "it is amoral, it is immoral". To all this is a truly moral act. — god must be atheist
Not one of the components are learned, inasmuch as the reaction to immediately risk the self in a rescue mission is not learned but automatic, and the elation-guilt reward-punishment system is not learned and furthermore can't be circumvented or avoided by the individual. — god must be atheist
There are a few other examples of autonomous moral behavior.
One is the moral obligation to kill your rival if you find him or her in an intimate act with your spouse. — god must be atheist
Non-autonomous morals are always social or societal. Biological evolution made it possible in humans to have the moral effect programmed by societal pressure. Educators in societies shape behavior, or at least attempt to, to make people act according to the rules of their host society. — god must be atheist
The far-reaching effect is our logical ability to reject the theories attempted to be built by all previous moral philosophers to date, up to, but not including, moral system theories by evolutionary theorists. — god must be atheist
The far-reaching effect is our logical ability to reject the theories attempted to be built by all previous moral philosophers to date, up to, but not including, moral system theories by evolutionary theorists. — god must be atheist
That's a neat claim, but why? I didn't really get that from your paper. — Philosophim
attempted the impossible to create an in and by itself complete and singular ethical system, because they had not realized the dual nature of morality, and more importantly, they were therefore blind to realize the different requirements for the two systems. Since the two systems are now viewed, as per my treatise here, as similar but with also some nonequivalent elements or features of operation, obviously and in a logical way, not one system of philosophy can be found that applies to both equally. Hence, moral questions will never be subjected to a single, all-encompassing evaluation (and repair) system, since the amorphous nature of the acquired moral codes and the rigid system of the autonomous moral codes make that wholly impossible. — god must be atheist
The approach of giving rewards to good action is not efficient in my opinion, because it externalizes that sense of fulfillment when we do something good and replaces it with mere pleasure, giving the false impression that good people have some significant amount of "success", which ends up discouraging people when they realize that being good does not necessarily imply success. — Hello Human
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.