There cannot be any watertight argument for the kind of idea I'm considering. You recall Fooloso4's thread on Phaedo. Rife with aporia, inconclusive arguments.

Yes, and in a sense I am pulling your leg. I object to your reliance on creed, but find mcuh of what you have said congenial.

You and I ought be working together to show @Nickolasgaspar that there is more to ethics than physics. Have you noticed his profile image? The Scientism is strong in this one.

You and I ought be working together to show Nickolasgaspar that there is more to ethics than physics. Have you noticed his profile image? The Scientism is strong in this one. — Banno

Well, true. But it's kind of the default, isn't it? Hasn't evolutionary biology rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the abandonment of traditional creeds? It seems very much taken-for-granted.

You're right that it's hard to 'find a creed'. When I set out on my quest, the last thing I wanted to become was a believer in anything. I thought that all creeds were the fossilised remnants of ideas. But it's turned out not to be so simple.

Again, you have here claimed that the wellbeing of society is what we ought do.

Why? — Banno

You wont find an "ought" in my statements. I never claims what we "ought to do". I only pointed out that what we understand as a morality refers to the implications an act has on the wellbeing of other members in a society.

You havn't grounded your moral system, just assumed it. — Banno

-I described what we identify as morality. My system just uses this acknowledgment as a way to produce moral evaluations. Do you have a different opinion on what morality describes in our interactions? Do you believe that we accept acts as moral even if they do not promote the well being of others and our society as a whole?

Well, no, it doesn't. Morality is about what one ought to do. — Banno

Ok...what to do in relation to who/what and with what purpose.????
I stated that " morality refers to the evaluation of acts that affect other members of a society!"
and you responded "No"...while literally stating "Morality is about what we should do around others. "
So morality is indeed about how to act around other members and evaluate which acts are acceptable or not(what we should or shouldn't dot).
Now my argument is that what we "should or shouldn't do"(to use your wording) is defined by how those acts affect other members of our society..in short our well being in general.
Do you have a different opinion on how we define those "shoulds"?

Perhaps we ought abandon the notion of society and instead return to living as wild, individual beasts. Or perhaps for the good of the planet we ought eliminate humanity altogether. — Banno

- Sir......these "solutions'' are irrelevant to my points.
I am defining what aspects of our reality and social life are described by our moral evaluations and judgments. what on earth living as wild or individual beasts has to do with this conversation???????

You've skipped from an is to an ought, without providing a justification. That we are social animals does not imply that we ought to be. — Banno

I DID NOT!!!! I NEVER mentioned the word ought! Are you sure you are responding to the correct post????
I am pointing out what we mean by the term moral behavior. What humans value as a moral act and what those acts promote.
Why is this so difficult for you?????

-"This is basic ethical theory. Ought be obvious''
and it is irrelevant to my points.
Pls focus on my arguments. Pls tell me if Moral acts promote or are against the well being of the members of a society. IF not pls tell me what it means for an act to be moral.

You and I ought be working together to show Nickolasgaspar that there is more to ethics than physics. Have you noticed his profile image? The Scientism is strong in this one. — Banno

First of all you seem to ignore the definition of scientism. I am the first to reject the basic premises of Scientistm (1.Science is the only source of knowledge and 2. Science can explain everything).
So lets put this strawman aside.
Secondly Physics has nothing to do with a byproduct of biology. Biology has....
Now pls work together and show me that ethics studies something more than the philosophical implications of a natural phenomenon....that of the meaning and value of human interactions.

@Nickolasgaspar, AH, so because you did not mention the word ought, you are not telling us what we ought to do. Your claim is that you are telling us only how things are.

If you are not telling us what we ought to do, you are not engaged in a moral discourse.

Hence, your posts are of no use in deciding what we should do.

Ethics is a lot more involved than just a bit of applied biology.

Well, true. But it's kind of the default, isn't it? Hasn't evolutionary biology rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the abandonment of traditional creeds? It seems very much taken-for-granted. — Wayfarer

But you and I might well have a disagreement with them...

Ethics 101 includes a rundown on the is-ought argument from Hume, which is a basic starting point. The discussion, last time I looked closely, had reached the point of discussing the direction of fit of statements, and noticed that some statements are varied in order to fit the way things are - roughly, science and such; while other statements say how not how things are but how they might be, given our acts of volition - preferences and ethics and such.

But this part is dropped as folk rush in to defend one or other of the standard ethical football teams - consequentialism, deontology or virtue, or to ground ethics in a creed or in biological science.

SO the first ask is to show folk that ethics is not like physics, and is not a branch of theology nor of biology.

It remains to be seen if a forum such as this can progress beyond these basics.

It remains that the choice of creed is yours. It remains that you cannot just dump your moral responsibility on to god, any more than Nickolasgaspar can dump it on the wellbeing of society. — Banno

I am not sure you understand the premises made by Secular Morality.
You view morality as being about " what one ought to do". So you assume that my point is "well being is what we ought to strive."
My answer is no. Again well being is only the principle we can use for objective judgments NOT what we ought to do. In Secular Morality we address the Descriptive NOT Normative aspect of the phenomenon.
We don't say what we "Ought to do", but we describe what type of acts we evaluate as moral and we identify their common denominator , which is wellbeing.
For a weird reason(not really), we seem to appreciate other people acts that do not undermine other people's well being!
So we understand that we humans identify moral behavior that which promotes the well being of members in a society. THis is NOT what we ought to do, this is what we find common in all acts that we accept as moral. (must I stress it some more?).

SO before we start making moral judgments we need to find a principle that can allow us to produce objective "oughts". This can be done by using as principle the common denominator we identified above.

SO my question is, do you think that we do have actions that undermine the well being of the members of a society and they are still considered to be moral? IF yes then we will have an exception in this rule. IF we find more similar acts then Secular Morality will be forced to get rid off this principle.

Which leads us to telling the Nazi's where the Jews are hiding if we know. God forbid we should ever usher in lying. — Tom Storm

As I indicated in my post, the thing I like about Kant's formulation is that it puts the responsibility on me. Perhaps he interpreted it rigidly, although I find it hard to believe he would be that rigid. To me, what it means is that it's ok for me to set the rules, as long as I'm committed to applying them fairly, including to myself. Especially to myself.

SO the first ask is to show folk that ethics is not like physics, and is not a branch of theology nor of biology. — Banno

Unlike yourself, I don't rule out the perspective provided by philosophical theology or religion generally, insofar as they provide a cosmic grounding for ethics.

I think I'm probably most drawn to 'natural law theory' but I'm not going to go to any lengths to defend it. (I note there's a pretty decent entry on it in Wikipedia. And with that, I bow out.)

Unlike yourself, I don't rule out the perspective provided by philosophical theology or religion generally, insofar as they provide a cosmic grounding for ethics. — Wayfarer

Such a perspective is Unnecessary and Insufficient plus we have zero epistemic foundations to make that assumption rendering it a pseudo philosophical speculation.

Perhaps he interpreted it rigidly, although I find it hard to believe he would be that rigid. To me, what it means is that it's ok for me to set the rules, as long as I'm committed to applying them fairly, including to myself. Especially to myself. — T Clark

I always heard that Kant was known for his fixated rigidity, both in his lifestyle (people set clocks by his daily walk) and by his rigid notion of duty which people have often satirized. I've understood the take home message of Kant as being Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus 'justice be done even if the world dies'. It's the opposite of pragmatic. Kant is a hard-core deontologist, an anti-utilitarian who eschewed consequentialism.

So Nazi's win with our help.... (edit: this refers to us telling them in which attics Jews are hiding)

hey it was Nietszche who was adulated by the Nazis, not Kant. I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason.

So Nazi's win with our help.... — Tom Storm

Doesn't matter what Kant would do, it matters what he suggests we should do. People don't generally discount the American Declaration of Independence just because the signers owned slaves. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, but the words matter all by themselves.

So, your objection is overruled.

Yes, it's this I have difficulty with...

...insofar as they provide a cosmic grounding for ethics. — Wayfarer

...because my cynical eye tells me it ain't so; there can be no "cosmic grounding", it has to be all our own work. That's why it is important; if it were all down to god, our choices wouldn't be that important.

There is a small space for religion as metaphor, alongside art, poetry, gardening and tea, but it garners no special role of the sort religious folk seem to find.

, to be fair to , Kant derived Prussian ethics from first principles; this Teutonic order fed into the Nazi ethic.

I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason. — Wayfarer

Oh, perhaps not. WIth being part of this-world, creating his own morality, re-embodying amoral aristocratic values, and generally living life as they want, this might as well be the Übermensch:


Or Freddy Mercury?

AH, so because you did not mention the word ought, you are not telling us what we ought to do. Your claim is that you are telling us only how things are.

If you are not telling us what we ought to do, you are not engaged in a moral discourse.

Hence, your posts are of no use in deciding what we should do.

Ethics is a lot more involved than just a bit of applied biology. — Banno

-I never told you what you ought to do. I am pointing out a common characteristic in all moral evaluations. Acts that are accepted as moral appear to promote the well being of our society and its individual members. If you disagree pls tell me why.

-"If you are not telling us what we ought to do, you are not engaged in a moral discourse."
-Of course I am not telling you what to do. I am only pointing out what principles appear to be able to produce objective moral judgments. By using those judgements we can objectively figure out what to we ought to do for our acts to be moral.

-"Hence, your posts are of no use in deciding what we should do."
-Maybe you need to revisit the Title of the thread and the content of the OP sir.
The subject of this thread is not a question on what what we should do, but it questions whether there is a way to arrive to objective (or absolute) moral judgments.

-"Ethics is a lot more involved than just a bit of applied biology."
-Ethics addresses the philosophical value and meaning of human behavior BY DEFINITION....so our philosophy analyzes the values we see in the spectrum of human behavior.
You keep claiming that well being is not a common characteristic of moral acts and that ethics is a lot more than the philosophical take on a specific natural phenomenon...but you avoid elaborating on those declarations.
(try pressing the reply or quote pop up window so that I can receive a notification).

...because my cynical eye tells me it ain't so; there can be no "cosmic grounding", it has to be all our own work. That's why it is important; if it were all down to god, our choices wouldn't be that important. — Banno

By 'cosmic', what I mean is this. A typically early-20th century view (put by Bertrand Russell and later by Dawkins et al) was that Darwinism had 'proved' that the mythology of creation was false. So instead of an intentional act, the obvious alternative was the opposite - life as a consequence of chance, given a vast enough universe and enough random interactions of atoms, then life arises as something like a chemical reaction, which then becomes subject to the Darwinian algorithm, which leads to its elaboration into the forms we now see. This is the subject of vast amounts of 20th C literature. And it is still the view of neo-Darwinian materialism, close to the mainstream.

So what's the alternative. I mean, I never for a moment believed that the creation mythology was literally true. So the fact that it's not literally true did not, for me, have the earth-shattering consequences that Dawkins seemed to imagine would flow from The God Delusion. I always saw mythological accounts as just that - mythological, not simply uninformed empirical theories. But they do carry a profound meaning. One of them is conveyed by the 'myth of the fall', which is a myth about the groundlessness of the human condition, the fact that everything we know and love is subject to death and destruction, and the fact that human nature seems to have innate capacities for destruction and less-than-optimal behaviour. THe problem of evil, and the problem of the vast suffering of life, remains.

So in a larger sense one can perfectly well accept the findings of empirical science - big bang cosmology, evolution by natural selection - and still find that many of the problems of philosophy remain. So what the naturalist account needs to offer is some grounds for why all of this has happened, what it actually means. The existentialist-atheist answer is that it means nothing whatever, that we 'create meaning' and must be brave enough to acknowledge it. That's one answer.

The answer that I prefer is more Bergsonian - that the evolutionary process is an essential part of the Cosmos. We're not simply the accidental outcome of chance and necessity but our being is intrinsic to the unfolding of the Cosmos.

I cross posted whilst you were busy recycling that garbage photo, which again makes me wonder whether I'm simply wasting my time putting up coconuts.

Doesn't matter what Kant would do, it matters what he suggests we should do. People don't generally discount the American Declaration of Independence just because the signers owned slaves. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, but the words matter all by themselves. — T Clark

That analogy doesn't work. A better example would be if the Declaration of Independence actually said 'human beings are all created equal, except for slaves and women' Then we would ignore it. :wink:

As I understand him, Kant specifically suggests we take on a proscribed, deontological approach that we should all implement so that a rigid moral code is established. He's really not into everyone having their own take.

hey it was Nietszche who was adulated by the Nazis, not Kant. I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason. — Wayfarer

Actually Nietzsche would have told the Nazi's to fuck off.

My point isn't what you think it is. It is about lying. Kant says you don't lie to anyone just to achieve a consequentialist greater good. Maybe I should have said Kant would recommend you tell the Russian troops where the Ukrainian women are hiding because lying is wrong.

A morality that does not tell us what to do is not a morality.

Of courseI am not telling you what to do. I am only pointing out what principles appear to be able to produce objective moral judgments. By using those judgements we can objectively figure out what to we ought to do for our acts to be moral. — Nickolasgaspar

Look again at this. See if you see a problem. You are not telling us what to do, but just how to "figure out what to do"...

You still jump from is to ought.

Oh, sure, that's understood. But I don't see that we have to chose between the existentialist account and the Bergsonian account. Either might be the case. Silence is also possible here.

We can take another step. It is evident that meaning is constructed as we use words, but further, that our broader "form of life" is a construct. Meaning is constructed by the very fact of our being... (and the "We" is quite important; it's not a private construction)

Hence the importance of the analysis of direction of fit, to which I do not recall your response. It still seems to me that accepting this or that creed is mistaking the direction of fit.

It is evident that meaning is constructed as we use words, but further, that our broader "form of life" is a construct. — Banno

According to biosemiosis, and pansemiosis, it's something inherent in the Universe. Life is the emergence of meaning. So this contention that life was 'the outcome of atoms which had no precognition of the end they were achieving', and that meaning is something 'we create', is, shall we say, deeply questionable.

Silence is indeed possible here. Perhaps you might give it a shot.

Maybe I should have said Kant would recommend you tell the Russian troops where the Ukrainian women are hiding because lying is wrong. — Tom Storm

In such cases we would tell Kant to fuck off.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

In order to change our mind there must be good reason to do so. Moral deliberation is not capricious. Rape is not an isolated moral issue, it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being.

Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." — Hanover

More relevantly, "one ought to eat a plant based diet". There are some good reasons for this, including the environmental impact of factory farming. Moral considerations have led a significant number of people to consider the value of animal life and thus limit or eliminate eating animals and/or animal products. It is not unreasonable to think that in future generations killing and eating animals will be considered immoral by the majority of people.

-"A morality that does not tell us what to do is not a morality."
-lol what are you talking about????
Morality is an abstract concept...it tell us nothing on its own.If you are looking for moral declarations that won't happen.
We need a system or a method based on a common shared characteristic by known moral judgments to inform us what actions would be moral in different situations...that how we can reach moral judgments.

Look again at this. See if you see a problem. You are not telling us what to do, but just how to "figure out what to do"... — Banno

Correct, I suggest a method that can help us produce objective moral evaluations based on a common characteristic of known moral judgments.

-"You still jump from is to ought."
-lol no I am not. I am just suggesting a method that can point to what we should do if we ALL accept the same principle of well being as a metric in our evaluations.
So my question is DO you accept the principle? if not can you explain the reasons why not?
Pls don't dodge my questions again!!!!!!
You skip my questions and you make empty accusations for "jumping from is to ought" when I am suggesting a falsifiable principle and a falsifiable method for you to expose by providing evidence.... but you keep avoiding challenging your rejections.

Life is the emergence of meaning. — Wayfarer

Life is the emergence of specific biological process. Meaning is a quality that emerges in specific biological functions (brain functions). Organisms with brains seek meaning in their experiences.
You are committing Fallacy of composition. A property displayed by a specific part shouldn't be assume a general property of a system.

-"

So this contention that life was 'the outcome of atoms which had no precognition of the end they were achieving' is, shall we say, deeply questionable. — Wayfarer

-The Null hypothesis doesn't allow precognition to be assumed as part of our Default position for the emergence of life.

Correct, I suggest a method that can help us produce objective moral evaluations based on a common characteristic of known moral judgments. — Nickolasgaspar

So... these objective moral evaluations don't tell us what to do?

it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being. — Fooloso4

I agree but I guess Hanover might ask you on what basis ought one to care for these values? The adoption of 'wellbeing' as a criterion of value is adopting a presupposition, is it not?

Life is the emergence of specific biological process. Meaning is a quality that emerges in specific biological functions (brain functions). — Nickolasgaspar

That is because you assume that thought is reducible to neuroscience, which is precisely the meaning of 'neuroscientific reductionism'. There are many criticisms of neuroscientific reductionism which are too voluminous to try and give an account of here. But I would argue that it's a mistake to ascribe semantic content to neurological data. Semantic content, which is the content of meaningful statements, is of a different order to the kinds of data the neuroscience deals with. Saying that neurobiological signals 'mean' something or 'transmit meaning' is projecting semantic value onto neurological signals. But neuroscience itself is nowhere near to understanding this process on a practical level. Overall it is concerned with much more specific functions of the brain, typically but not always concentrating on pathologies of various kinds. So neuroscientific reductionism is said to commit the 'mereological fallacy', that is, the ascription of what conscious agencies are able to do, to only one part of the organism, namely, the brain.

Besides, that is not the point of the emerging science of biosemiosis, which I referred to, which is the sense in which signs (and therefore meaning) are inherent in all living processes, even very simple ones like single-celled organisms. That is in turn connected with the view that rational sentient beings such as ourselves don't live in a world comprising physical objects, but a world comprising meanings - the meaning-world or 'umwelt' which is interpreted by us as (among other things) a physical domain.

Forget that part...we are NOT THERE YET! Whether we MUST follow an objective moral judgments is irrelevant.
Pls Focus on my question and try to weight in your answers.

Is well being a common characteristic in every single act you are able to identify as moral?
If not can you point out which act doesn't share this characteristic while being moral?
If we accept well being as our auxiliary principle in our evaluations does that help us identify which act is objective moral or immoral.
Pls argue for the position you take.