I concure. Moral decisions cannot be decided in an algorithmic fashion - they are far too complex. Just as no rule can accomodate the definition of "game", and of "morality", no rules could cover the all possible situations we migth call "moral". — Banno
Why do you think many secular humanists are concerned about human rights and work hard to help others and improve human life? Do you think it's the remnants of theism? — Tom Storm
The shortalls he summarised have being debunked. MAybe you can point out which ones in your opinion still fly. — Nickolasgaspar
To claim the secular humanist's beliefs about humans are foundational is to claim something special about humans, but they deny humans have any. If humans have no degree of magic in their constitution, then we'd need to treat human beings like the pool balls that they are.
So, either (1) admit that humans are special and worthy of special treatment and make that your foundation, or (2) deny that and stop with trying to create special rules for these ordinary physical entities. If you choose (1), you're not a secular humanist as they define themselves and you've not avoided any of the problems levied against the theist. If you choose (2), you're not a secular humanist, but some sort of nihilist, which is exactly what the theist expected to be the result. — Hanover
As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. The idea that faith alone makes you a better person isn't something I subscribe to. — Hanover
As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. — Hanover
there can't be an absolute objective morality - one where I say you are objectively morally wrong in any instance. — PhilosophyRunner
My understanding of morality splits the difference between subjective and objective views. As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. — T Clark
If morality is, as I claim, a reflection of human nature, there is a sense in which it is objective. It's how we're built by evolution, genetics, and development as supported by socialization and learning. — T Clark
Yes, but even if that is the case, I suggest it is still subjective. — PhilosophyRunner
morality is, as I claim, a reflection of human nature, there is a sense in which it is objective. It's how we're built by evolution, genetics, and development as supported by socialization and learning. — T Clark
It's simply that an item that does not appear in the assumptions of an argument cannot appear in the conclusion. Hence a series of assumptions or observations about how things are cannot lead to the conclusion that things ought be — Banno
So yes I would agree with you that morality is objective in some senses and subjective in others. — PhilosophyRunner
This is based upon a false assumption of the universality of ethical norms. — Hanover
It is simply not the case that all cultures hold to the same moral rules, which would presumably be the case if morality was the result of genetic evolution (as opposed to social evolution). — Hanover
You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori, — Hanover
alleviate the need that we teach our children rights from wrong. — Hanover
This is based upon a false assumption of the universality of ethical norms. It is simply not the case that all cultures hold to the same moral rules, which would presumably be the case if morality was the result of genetic evolution (as opposed to social evolution). — Hanover
No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation — T Clark
You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori,
— Hanover
No, I'm not.
As I've said, at it's most basic, morality is based on empathy. A sense of commonality with other people. I think a lot of that is built in. Hardwired. How much? I don't know. — T Clark
I could only say that you are a victim of incorrectly attributing similarities where there shouldn't be. We are talking humans here. Let's get physics out of here.Take the analogy of physics laws (my area). I observe that force applied on an object is proportional to it's mass multiplied by it's acceleration. People have observed that since newton, and it is one of the laws of motion he suggested. This has very accurately and reliably been shown to be true. I'm pretty confident in it. I can use it to make predictions.
However I cannot use it to say how nature should or ought to behave. — PhilosophyRunner
No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation
— T Clark
Then why the variation cross-culturally? — Hanover
Some cultures have purity rules, dietary rules, sexual prohibitions, caste systems, gender rules, body modification rules, ritualistic demands, etc etc. These ethical rules often violate progressive liberal views on what empathy demands. — Hanover
My understanding of morality splits the difference between subjective and objective views. As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. We are social animals. We like each other and like to hang around with each other. We have empathy. Add on top of that the needs of running societies ranging from just a few people to millions and you get a complex mix of biological, psychological, sociological, and cultural. — T Clark
How are you distinguishing a priori from "hardwired"? — Hanover
proclaim that the true way to determine morality — Hanover
Frankly, I don't understand the question. — Agent Smith
is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner
How do you measure well-being? — Isaac
There are specific metrics like
1.our biological drives to survive( belong to a group,), to flourish(ensure safety) and to procreate.
1.our biological urges Address our biological need, Seek non destructive pleasure and avoid pain/suffering
3.Behavior fueled by our mirror neurons that enable sympathy and empathy
those are some of the most essential. — Nickolasgaspar
Seems you are using "biological urge" in much the way I might use "desire". — Banno
Reinforcing this point is well worth doing, especially in the face of the myth of competition found in capitalist ideology. it also perhaps serves to demonstrate the pathological nature of egocentrism and sociopathy. — Banno
it's down to laziness. — Banno
there is a point in raising what is a non-trivial problem that had been ignored. — Banno
In relation to morality I don't really care for science or biology based arguments. — Tom Storm
I am not sure you have the luxury to dismiss Knowledge from a philosophical inquire and biology from your efforts to understand a biological by product! — Nickolasgaspar
So Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions(lack of trust) etc etc are not objective metrics of well being??????Those are not metrics. I'm asking you how you measure whether someone (or society's) well-being has been harmed. That measurement is required for the objectivity of your proposed scheme. — Isaac
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.