Morality is our necessary "crowd control" system. It's our built in (we have to learn it) self-control mechanism. "Built in" but not pre-programmed. It has to be taught and learned. But "taught and learned" doesn't preclude a built in, biologically based capacity for crowd-control and self-regulation. — Bitter Crank
Morality among peoples seems to have a fair amount of commonality. — Bitter Crank
Thanks for the suggestion. I have never read Rorty, but I definitely will do. He was interviewed in a Heidegger documentary I watched recently. I really liked his demeanor. BTW I'm quite busy with a another project at the moment. I probably won't be ready to discuss The Concept of Time for another two weeks if that's cool? I plan to read bits and pieces of different texts to try to understand it... — bloodninja
Morality is our necessary "crowd control" system. It's our built in (we have to learn it) self-control mechanism. "Built in" but not pre-programmed. It has to be taught and learned. But "taught and learned" doesn't preclude a built in, biologically based capacity for crowd-control and self-regulation. — Bitter Crank
In other words, the moral virtues are grounded in our nature, according to Aristotle. — bloodninja
Really? How do you interpret "we are adapted by nature to receive them [the virtues]"? — bloodninja
BUT If there is no human nature, then in what are our moral theories grounded? This is my first question. — bloodninja
If we go the Levinasian route, it's that ethics is fundamentally originative from a peculiar relationship to the Other. The Other is precisely that which cannot be assimilated into a "Self" worldview, defined and calculated and mixed and organized into a framework. The Other eludes such violence. — darthbarracuda
Why would it need to be "hardwired...there from the beginning" in order to qualify as human nature? — Janus
the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans — T Clark
I can't see why characteristics that develop in the process of socialization in all societies would not qualify as natural human characteristics. — Janus
something innate while simultaneously pointing to or articulating what is fundamentally distinctive about us — bloodninja
I think You are both on to something. T Clark, I don't think you expressed your idea clearly enough when you said "I would add that it should be hardwired. There from the beginning before any social influence." Because, prior to this the definition you quoted mentioned "psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits", which I think Janus, and Aristotle, are rightly pointing out can only occur through socialization. — bloodninja
So, I think Levinas might have said that trying to pin ethics down to something like a "human nature" is a form of violence to the Other. By doing so, we'd be trying to ground ethics in the familiar and intelligible when the Other is not this way. — darthbarracuda
BUT If there is no human nature, then in what are our moral theories grounded? This is my first question. — bloodninja
How else could they be grounded? — bloodninja
To give some examples:
God
Well-being (of anything)
Well-being of any sentient beings
Culture
Nothing — BlueBanana
Which god? — bloodninja
Well-being. Okay but how would one know what would count as well-being to begin with? Only by having an idea of the nature of the being in question? For example, The well-being of the human would depend on what it means for a human to live well, which in turn requires something like a description of human nature. — bloodninja
Well-being of any sentient beings. No comment. — bloodninja
Nothing. Interesting... What do you mean? Do you mean: we just do what one does because it's what one does, and it's ultimately meaningless? — bloodninja
Randomly picking humans from the group of anything imaginable seems biased as we are humans. I'd rather take a rock or something into consideration. — BlueBanana
Why? Because animals shouldn't be treated well or because of reasons related to discussing the subject? — BlueBanana
Here is my interpretation:Your interpretation, as far as I can tell... — BlueBanana
The difference between possessing an innate nature and not is that if the former is true then we can ground our moral claims and give them strong normative force. If the latter is true, and there is no innate human nature, then it appears that we have nothing to ground our moral claims in so they have weak normative force; we would be a social construction just like the socially constructed moral claims. Morality would be completely meaningless and arbitrary. To the question why be good? there would be no sufficient answer. — bloodninja
Sorry I don't understand, can you please explain more what you meant here? — bloodninja
No because the idea of sentience grounding morality can't be taken seriously. Morality is far too complex to be grounded in sentience. — bloodninja
Here is my interpretation: — bloodninja
Morals can be viewed as a thing much larger than us puny humans. — BlueBanana
Sentience isn't complex? The most conventional view is that morals only apply to sentient beings, and therefor it's quite logical to say that morals are a property of sentient beings or their sentience. — BlueBanana
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.