Are there moral facts? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No, and yes. Most fundamentally, morality is a sense - in terms of which, rightfully, we understand facts about an objective reality. Famously, Hume objects to this - giving rise to the is/ought dichotomy. But he's wrong to object to human reason, poised between is and ought, reconciling objective facts in terms of subjective values. And he's wrong because he assumes moral facts are God given.

In light of modern knowledge, morality is clearly a consequence of evolution. Homo sapiens lived as hunter gatherers for millions of years, and then joined together to form multi tribal groups, societies, leading to civilisations. This wasn't easy. There's around 35,000 years between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence as evident in artefacts like improved tools, cave painting and burial of the dead, and the formation of the first civilisations. Why did it take so long?

Insofar as chimpanzee troops are an adequate model, they are ruled by an alpha male and his lieutenants who monopolise food and mating opportunities. This hierarchical structure makes it difficult for tribes to join together. Any dispute would naturally divide the fledgling society into its tribal elements; unless they had moral laws that applied to everyone. And this is the nature of civilisation.

We objectivised morality by attributing moral laws to God, and insisted everyone believe in the same god, and obey the same moral laws. Religion, law, philosophy, economics, democratic politics etc - are means by which we agree on moral values, in terms of which objective facts "ought" to be understood. These then become, objective moral facts. So now, we return to Hume, who assumes morality is a set of God given, objective moral facts - and so he argues:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

Had Hume known that moral behaviour was an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe made up of moral individuals - such that they share food, defend each other, as they must have done to raise generation after generation of young, he would not have objected to - what he recognises occurs in 'every system of morality which I have hitherto met with.' But morality was objectivised for political purposes, and further, science was declared a heresy to defend religion as an authoritative basis for moral laws. The picture is thus very confused, but in my view, rightfully, science provides objective facts, which are then understood in terms of a subjective moral sense.

And he's wrong because he assumes objective, God given moral facts. — counterpunch

What if God in the contexts of many is not a supernatural being or entity but the simple idea of absoluteness. Do you not assume the role of God in this case by asserting what others assert to be as you interpret it? What makes your particular claim here, which you undoubtedly assert as inarguable and absolute, any different from the idea of a God given moral fact?

Hume thought moral facts were god given?

I don't think so. Can you support this?

And evolution, again. That we have evolved to do such-and-such does not suffice to show that such-and-such is right.

I don't know if God exists, or does not. I'm agnostic. But God exists as a concept in human understanding, and - I believe, that concept enabled hunter gatherers to objectivise morality by attributing moral laws to God. Think of Moses coming down the mountain with his stone tablets. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. These were not new concepts at the time. Man was not running around, before then, killing and stealing with impunity. It's one of the reasons I reject nihilism. Man could not have survived as an amoral ubermensch. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food, groom each other, defend the troop, and they remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours in future. Morality is a subjective sense ingrained into the human organism by evolution, made objective for political purposes.

I hope that clears things up for you. I did not understand the majority of your post.

Are there moral facts? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What are facts? There are many theories on the subject, but put in deliberately simple language I'd say the defining characteristic of a "fact" is this:

That it reasserts itself even if you are unaware or even actively opposed to it.

For example: One may be opposed to the idea that the micro scale actually works in the way described by quantum physics. Yet such disagreement cannot escape the reality that if you actually want to predict the behaviour of a system on a micro scale, you have to use them.

Does something similar happen with morality? From a theoretical perspective, the answer seems to be: No. There is nothing about a moral philosophy which reasserts itself regardless of beliefs. You can believe more or less everything you want in the realm of morality, and your efforts to achieve any arbitrary goal will not be hindered.

This changes only if we view morality as a practical question: not an abstract theory of good and bad, but as a set of practical rules under which an end result - a moral world - is achieved. Viewed this way, there are things which reasserts themselves, and indeed have reasserted themselves throughout history and been written down in various texts. You can not believe that you can take whatever you want and keep it, for example, if such a proposition were ever a practical rule for everyone. In that sense, it'd be a moral fact, albeit a negative one.

hat we have evolved to do such-and-such does nto siffice to shoe that such-and-such is right. — Banno

I'm inclined to do the such-and-such shoe shuffle to Dinah Washington singing Mad about the Boy...

Hume thought moral facts were god given? I don't think so. Can you support this? — Banno

The passage quoted implies Hume assumes morality is God given.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God... — counterpunch

With regard to his personal beliefs, he was agnostic or sceptical, (not publicly, of course, because that would invite accusations of heresy, and could result in execution by the church, who were burning heretics alive right through to 1792) but he recognises that moral values are attributed to, and maintained by the authority of God.

And evolution, again. That we have evolved to do such-and-such does nto suffice to shoe that such-and-such is right. — Banno

Who said it does? Not I, that's for sure!

The passage quoted implies Hume assumes morality is God given. — counterpunch

...the one in which he rejects that assumption...

Does he? Where?

I suggest you look up the whole of the quote you cite.

Sometimes my fingers move too slowly for my thoughts. Sometime my thoughts move too slowly for my fingers.

Thanks for the suggestion. Where?

https://davidhume.org/texts/t/3/1/1

T 3.1.1.27, SBN 469-70.

Odd, that you cited it, but can't check the context.

https://davidhume.org/texts/t/3/1/1

T 3.1.1.27, SBN 469-70. — Banno

I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."

Where in this passage does he refute the suggestion that morality is a set of God given laws? I don't see it. If you do, please indicate it.

It's an interesting topic.

P2. A sentence is true if and only if the truth-making relation holds between it and the thing that makes it true. — Shin Kim

"...the thing that makes it true."

I'm not sure that in the case of a moral statements, there is such a thing...

But that's not unusual. Consider: 2+2=4 is true. What is the thing that makes it true? Presumably, that 2+2=4.

(continued after interruption...)

What we can drop is an implicit correspondence theory of truth, such that there is a distinct thing that makes the statement true.

Yeah. I've no time for this. Hume did not hold that morality proceeded from god. End of discussion.

In light of modern knowledge, morality is clearly a consequence of evolution. — counterpunch

The problem with this is that for most creatures, survival is an imperative that can never be questioned. For h. Sapiens, existence itself is a predicament, and the facts of evolution have little bearing on it.

I'm not sure that in the case of a moral statements, there is such a thing... — Banno

In the case of morality and ethics, actions always speak louder than words.

Most species that have ever lived; in fact, something like 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. What survives is a marble cut from a mountain - that survives because it's constantly tested by the function or die algorithm of natural selection.

Evolution is profoundly important to h.sapiens - because we evolved. In order to understand our psychology, morality, religion, politics, etc, we need to understand our evolutionary history.

I can show this with reference to Nietzsche, who didn't understand evolution at all - and imagined h.sapiens as Godless amoral animals. Not so. Human beings are moral creatures, imbued with a moral sense by evolution, and religion is a expression of that innate morality.

Yep; now it seems to me that

P1. Moral sentences are sometimes true. — Shin Kim

...is quite acceptable. What I'd reject is the notion that truth is in all cases determined by correspondence. Hence, the example of mathematical truths - where what they correspond to is unclear.

It's the action that counts in moral issues, as you say; It's unclear how truth relates to actions.

Evolution is profoundly important to h.sapiens - because we evolved. In order to understand our psychology, morality, religion, politics, etc, we need to understand our evolutionary history. — counterpunch

Not so. It’s the naturalistic fallacy, that because something occurs in nature, then it’s necessarily good, or a guide to what is good. Evolutionary science is of course a fundamental science, but it has very little bearing on moral philosophy. ( :yikes: Brace for umbrage.)

It's the action that counts in moral issues, as you say; It's unclear how truth relates to actions. — Banno

It’s unclear how truth as an attribute of propositions does. But there’s a lived truth, a truth you feel in your bones, that has a bearing.

But there’s a lived truth, a truth you feel in your bones, that has a bearing. — Wayfarer

An inexpressible truth?

A lived truth can be stated. As can a truth that you feel in your bones.

We will need to be clear about what is true, and how it is justified. "It's true: I feel it in my bones".

Not so. It’s the naturalistic fallacy, that because something occurs in nature, then it’s necessarily good, or a guide to what is good. Evolutionary science is of course a fundamental science, but it has very little bearing on moral philosophy. (:yikes: Brace for umbrage.) — Wayfarer

I don't take umbrage at people disagreeing with me, but I do if they are unclear - and refuse to clarify what it is they are saying I'm wrong about. Here you are wrong again, but I'm not just going to leave it there. I'm going to explain why.

Morality is a sense. It's not an explicit set of rules - so doesn't constitute a naturalistic fallacy. It's like humour, or aesthetics. There's considerable overlap among individuals as to what's funny, or beautiful, or moral - but no naturally occurring, definitive set of moral rules. That so, I'm not saying, as Nietzsche argued, that man in a state of nature was an amoral brute - and therefore we should be too. I'm saying that evolution has imbued us with a moral sense, that enables us to derive ought from is.

Morality is a sense. — counterpunch

‘Tis not. It’s a reasoned judgement about the correct action. And attributing its development to evolution is indeed very close to the naturalistic fallacy.

Here’s my view of what happened. Of course it’s true that we all passed through the tortuous process of evolution from simian forbears. But what imposes moral necessity on us, is not an instinct, like that by which salmon return to their home stream. It’s because we became independent arbiters of what is good. We could decide, we could judge. We had possessions, things to call our own, and language by which to name it. That is the origin of the moral sense. No doubt, we evolved to the point of developing that sense, but to say it is merely or simply an adaptive necessity is to entirely mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self of h. Sapiens. When we evolved to that point, we also escaped the gravity of biology to some degree. We were no longer simply a creature, but a creature who could ask ‘what am I?’, and ‘what is this world I find myself in?’

Nice.

I'd add something about the role of language...

Here’s my view of what happened. Of course it’s true that we all passed through the tortuous process of evolution from simian forbears. But what imposes moral necessity on us, is not an instinct, like that by which salmon return to their home stream. It’s because we became independent arbiters of what is good. We could decide, we could judge. We had possessions, things to call our own, and language by which to name it. That is the origin of the moral sense. No doubt, we evolved to the point of developing that sense, but to say it is merely or simply an adaptive necessity is to entirely mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self of h. Sapiens. When we evolved to that point, we also escaped the gravity of biology to some degree. We were no longer simply a creature, but a creature who could ask ‘what am I?’, and ‘what is this world I find myself in?’ — Wayfarer

Beautiful bit of writing, W, and I'm not sure how Sam Harris/Counterpunch will respond.

But I am curious that you made a point of highlighting possessions as a key element. Our ancestors must have had nascent empathy to even start on this journey - how else can one raise young? And I would have thought that in tribal living being able to support each other would have strengthened survival chances. Reciprocal altruism is just as likely to have emerged in a, shall we say, more transactional expression of behaviour? I feel grubby....

‘Tis not. It’s a reasoned judgement about the correct action. — Wayfarer

Is it? So if you see a big bloke punching a small woman - do you make a reasoned judgment that it's wrong, or do you feel it? If you hear a joke - is it funny because you identify the ironic reversal of expectations? You see a beautiful painting, is it beautiful because it obeys laws of proportion, perspective and colour? No. Most people have never heard of the golden ratio. It appeals to the eye, or it doesn't. It's a sense. Like humour, or morality.

Here’s my view of what happened. Of course it’s true that we all passed through the tortuous process of evolution from simian forbears. But what imposes moral necessity on us, is not an instinct, like that by which salmon return to their home stream. It’s because we became independent arbiters of what is good. We could decide, we could judge. We had possessions, things to call our own, and language by which to name it. — Wayfarer

Then how is it that chimpanzees have morality (of sorts.)? They have hierarchies, they groom each other and share food, and they remember who reciprocates, and who doesn't, and punish that individual by withholding such favours in future.

That is the origin of the moral sense. No doubt, we evolved to the point of developing that sense, but to say it is merely or simply an adaptive necessity is to entirely mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self of h. Sapiens. — Wayfarer

Wow, you seem to be coming around! But then - what do you mean by "mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self" ???

It must mean something, but I can't parse it. I don't want to bang on about the emergence of human intellect in evolutionary history, if that's not what you're referencing. But in short, the moral sense is pre-intellectual, as evidence by chimp tribal morality. Explicit or objective moral values are human expressions, (not always honest expressions) of that innate moral sense.

Beautiful bit of writing, W, and I'm not sure how Sam Harris/Counterpunch will respond. — Tom Storm

I appreciate the conflation. Thanks. I don't agree with Sam Harris on very much, but I too am charming and handsome!

Cool. It was just the ought/is morality connection. Nothing deep...