Suppose that we have evolved to behave in a certain way. It remains an open question as to whether we ought behave in that way.
When the ends justify the means, then to hell with what's right, good, fair, just, harmless, etc. — creativesoul
Here's a point that needs consideration.
Suppose that we have evolved to behave in a certain way.
It remains an open question as to whether we ought behave in that way.
This is Moore's open question argument, and so far as I am aware, no solution has been offered.
So basing you moral choices on what you have evolved to do, remains a moral choice. — Banno
I was simply showing the common denominators in morality, some of them anyway. I mean, you strongly asserted against the notion, so... — creativesoul
What makes you think and/or believe that Virgil's behaviour was governed and/or driven by moral intuition? Why not just plain 'ole attribution of causality, that giving to the others produced results Virgil wanted, inferred, and expected? — creativesoul
The notion of should do something implies motive toward a goal, as in if I wish to accomplish A then the best known route to do so is pathToA.Instrumental oughts are ends justify the means. — creativesoul
Evolution has oriented Virgil's intuition to be a certain way (with inexorably strategic results), and in this case his evolution endowed intuition has lead him to make a counter-instinctual decision that was strategically beneficial to his well-being in the long run (many animals would simply horde all the treats for themselves). The mechanical causality of Virgil's derision making is secondary to the strategic ramifications of his actions. We can describe the "why" of the specific action in terms of biological and cognitive processes, but we could also explain the "why" by pointing to the fact that such behavior is prevalent in hominids because it is an extremely successful strategy for preserving life and well-being, which has resulted in creatures with such dispositions to become prevalent. — VagabondSpectre
Instrumental oughts are ends justify the means.
— creativesoul
The notion of should do something implies motive toward a goal, as in if I wish to accomplish A then the best known route to do so is pathToA.
The cliche describes a situation where the witness has already ranked the set of possible goals and chosen A as the desired outcome. It presents the situation of explaining reasons for action afterwards, and people are notoriously creative and inventing reasons — AngleWyrm
Instrumental oughts are ends justify the means.
— creativesoul
The cliche describes a situation ... of explaining reasons for action afterwards, and people are notoriously creative and inventing reasons — AngleWyrm
Indeed, as you've just shown. — creativesoul
Who decides what should be censored? — AngleWyrm
How would you know if any of this is true?
What makes you think and/or believe that Virgil's behaviour was governed and/or driven by moral intuition? — creativesoul
Why not the much simpler and adequate explanation of just plain 'ole attribution of causality; that giving to the others produced results Virgil wanted, inferred, and expected? — creativesoul
I find no justification at all for attributing strategy to such simplistic thought and belief. — creativesoul
"Causality" is not an adequate explanation, or even an explanation... — VagabondSpectre
Indeed it's not. Nor was that the whole of my answer. Misquoting, blatantly even, is bad form. Red herring. Non-sequitur. Strawman/dog. None of those are acceptable. — creativesoul
The primate draws a connection between his/her own mental state, it's actions, and what happens afterwards. The effects of the act are imprinted into the mind of the primate affecting it's subsequent mental connections. — creativesoul
Moral thinking is a metacognitive endeavour. It is thinking about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That primate is incapable of thinking in such a way. That is not to say that the primate does not exhibit thoughtful behaviour. It is to appropriately temper our talk of what that consists in/of. — creativesoul
Some of the content of moral thinking exists prior to our awareness of it. For example. Some moral belief is true, others are not. Some religious based. Others are not. Just as it is the case with all our thought and belief, we only first discover that our thought and belief can be true/false. It is false prior to our becoming aware of it. It is true prior to our becoming aware of it. Our becoming aware of it does not make it so, either way. All of this is necessary for moral thinkin — creativesoul
The outlined content in the first paragraph above doesn't require language in order to form. It is both necessary and sufficient for roughly outlining the primate behaviour. It doesn't mistakenly attribute complex thought and belief to an agent incapable of forming and/or holding them. That is the only kind of content that that primate can have within it's mental ongoings. Simple.
Just as we once were, it is not capable of complex thought. It merely acts upon it's own mental ongoings. We describe them. — creativesoul
we are the way we are. — VagabondSpectre
I haven't misquoted or ignored any part of your response. — VagabondSpectre
You, however, seem to have completely missed my point.
I offered a causal explanation of why Virgil behaved the way he did: A strategy, devised by the trial and error based mind of evolution, encoded into the genetics of Virgil, which expresses itself through the intuitive and emotional tendencies of the overall organism (I.E hard coded nuero-chemical and hormonal regimes designed to promote specifically cooperative behaviors; innate empathy for lack of a better term).
Your response of "it's a better explanation to just say: causality; what he wanted; what he inferred; what he expected" is then flabbergasting.
You have and you did once again. Not much more can be said, except to point it out. An astute reader will take note. — creativesoul
I'm not missing your point, I'm refuting it based upon Ockham's razor amongst other things. Here, you'r attributing agency where none exists. Evolution is a process. There is no warrant for either intent, nor purpose. You preach intelligent design in evolutionary terms. An abuse of language. — creativesoul
As is this... Yet another misquote. You seem to still fall prey to not being able to correct yourself when your belief is wrong in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. — creativesoul
Honestly I have no clue what you're even trying to say here.I'm setting out what's basic for all thought and belief. Thought and belief is accrued. What's basic to simple is basic to complex(in terms of it's basic constitution). What's true of the simple is true of the complex(in terms of it's basic constitution). — creativesoul
You've put forth ideas and notions that are contrary to what basic thought and belief consist in/of. — creativesoul
Thus, I reject what you've said. That rejection is grounded upon Ockham's razor and the fact that you're attributing complex thought and belief where none is warranted, where none can be had... yet. — creativesoul
we are the way we are.
— @VagabondSpectre
This does not imply that we are the way we ought be.
I'm setting out what's basic for all thought and belief. Thought and belief is accrued. What's basic to simple is basic to complex(in terms of it's basic constitution). What's true of the simple is true of the complex(in terms of it's basic constitution).
— creativesoul
Honestly I have no clue what you're even trying to say here. — VagabondSpectre
This does not imply that we are the way we ought be. — Banno
Of all things said thus far, this is the most significant.
Would you care to? — creativesoul
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.