That is precisely my point, that if moral knowledge cannot be taught, then we must acquire it through observation of our own innate knowledge of it. Unless you are suggesting it can be observed elsewhere?What if we learn the morals without being taught? What if they exist independently of humanity, and can be observed? — BlueBanana
Knowledge of most things can be observed empirically. Once observed, then it can be taught to others who did not observe it. The absurdity is valid only for morality, because other than through innate knowledge, we cannot observe morality directly; only acts which we then judge to be morally good or bad. But then this judgement presupposes a moral knowledge.To demonstrate why the P3 doesn't work: It is absurd to suppose that knowledge of anything is taught. If it was, then who was the first teacher, and "why would he tell us?!" — BlueBanana
Unless you are suggesting it can be observed elsewhere? — Samuel Lacrampe
we cannot observe morality directly; only acts which we then judge to be morally good or bad. But then this judgement presupposes a moral knowledge. — Samuel Lacrampe
This is not a disproof of the subjectivity of morality-- in fact, it is the opposite. Your logic is deeply flawed. The contradiction you think to be so crippling to the philosophy of subjective morality only presents a problem if you actually presuppose that morality is objective!But then there is a contradiction because on one hand, our moral system does not tolerate immoral acts, and on the other hand, it says we should be tolerant of subjective differences. — Samuel Lacrampe
Additionally: Occam's Razor, please.
Are we required to make more assumptions by asserting that moral codes, which can differ vastly among countries, ethnicities, and even communities, are sets of taught acceptable behaviours and views, coupled with a genetic legacy for survival in social groups; or that human beings are somehow endowed from birth with a natural understanding of such abstract and hotly debated concepts as "good" and "evil," which somehow exist in the physical world-- perhaps as a field, like magnetism? — bioazer
My issue is not with the above statement. It is with the OP's assertions about the nature of morality.A bad outcome is undoubtably not morally bad if it is an honest, unintentional accident, such as accidentally running over a person that deliberately jumps in front of the car. — Samuel Lacrampe
This is sort of like saying, "It's absurd to suppose that language is taught! Who invented it? Why would he teach us about it?" That is simply not the way that ideas are spread. Morality is an emergent social phenomenon. It is less taught than it is learnt: we observe what is considered acceptable behavior and pattern our behavior accordingly, which for the most part comes naturally to us: we are social animals, and most of our species has a fairly strong empathetic connection to other human beings.P3: It is absurd to suppose that knowledge of good and evil is taught. If it was, then who was the first teacher, and "why would he tell us?!" — Samuel Lacrampe
This obviously does not reflect my views on the subject. I agree to some degree with relativism, which suggests that morality is cultural, but relativism tends to be overly dismissive of moral universals.Moral subjectivism: Morality is not dependent on society but only on the individual. Anything is okay as long as one lives by [one's] own principles (hypocrisy, inconsistency can be embraced). — Gene Myers, WWU
Hello. You are correct that my argument (1) does not disprove moral subjectivism. However, it does showcase the consequences of believing in our western moral system in a subjective way, namely, that it is contradictory. And there is no need to presuppose the objectivity of the moral system to see the contradiction; just logic. In other words, either the western moral system is objectively real, or it cannot exist, even in a subjective way, without contradiction.This is not a disproof of the subjectivity of morality-- in fact, it is the opposite. Your logic is deeply flawed. The contradiction you think to be so crippling to the philosophy of subjective morality only presents a problem if you actually presuppose that morality is objective! — bioazer
To add to this statement, the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is called that way because it "occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition." Source.we also know that the basics of morals are remarkably similar across cultures — Pseudonym
Yes; your hypothesis that our moral sense is merely a genetic tool used for survival is insufficient to explain the complete moral sense. Do you agree that your moral sense tells you that the following acts are immoral?Additionally: Occam's Razor, please.
Are we required to make more assumptions by asserting that moral codes [...] are sets of taught acceptable behaviors and views, coupled with a genetic legacy for survival in social groups — bioazer
Golden Rule.If morality is objective-- universal-- where do you draw the line between good and evil? — bioazer
As I said in the OP, intention of good and evil is a necessary component of morality. As long as your intentions are not evil (don't violate the Golden Rule), then there is no moral mistake, only possible rational mistakes.How do you solve the Trolley Problem? — bioazer
...that's why I pointed out the significant influence of culture.Yes; your hypothesis that our moral sense is merely a genetic tool used for survival is insufficient to explain the complete moral sense.
(1) Yes, but I was raised in a society in which monogamy is valued.Do you agree that your moral sense tells you that the following acts are immoral?
(1) Cheating on your spouse, even if it is guaranteed that he/she never finds out about it.
(2) Turning a nation into farming animals for quick reproduction, and thus securing the survival of the species through sheer numbers.
(3) If your own survival is guaranteed (by, say, super powers), then all acts become moral because the end of surviving is already met.
I am talking about empathy, a real biological phenomenon; your given examples have nothing to do with how empathy works. Levels of empathy vary by individual, but the vast majority of the human race feels emotional distress when they see that another is in pain, the same way we feel nauseous when we see someone vomiting. This is natural for social animals. But again-- the amount of empathy one feels depends entirely upon the individual, and some individuals lack it entirely. They have no intuitive understanding of what is considered right or wrong, and no qualms whatsoever about harming other human beings. — bioazer
Your explanations are incomplete as they only push the mystery one step back. (1) Why is monogamy valued? (2) and (3) Why do we feel empathy? For both questions, the answer can be 'justice', which completes the explanation.(1) Yes, but I was raised in a society in which monogamy is valued.
(2) and (3) I think that you might have understood me in my "genetic tool for survival" claim-- I am talking about empathy, a real biological phenomenon; your given examples have nothing to do with how empathy works. Levels of empathy vary by individual, but the vast majority of the human race feels emotional distress when they see that another is in pain, the same way we feel nauseous when we see someone vomiting. This is natural for social animals. But again-- the amount of empathy one feels depends entirely upon the individual, and some individuals lack it entirely. They have no intuitive understanding of what is considered right or wrong, and no qualms whatsoever about harming other human beings. — bioazer
If you did not place the people there, then you are not morally responsible for the outcome, because your intentions were not bad, and you did not fail the Golden Rule. If you did place them there, then you are morally responsible, because that was your intentions, and these failed the Golden Rule. After that, one may argue that we should choose the path that saves the most amount of people; but this is once again a rational problem, not a moral one....so the Golden Rule is the plumb line between good and evil, huh? How does that apply at all in the Trolley Problem? Whatever happens, you are still running people over with the trolley, no matter how altruistic you might be-- does "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" really apply here? — bioazer
See the Just War Theory. War is sometimes the right thing to do, as would be the case when going to war against the Nazis. Its underlying principle is still justice, as indicated in the name.What about war? — bioazer
You misunderstand the term 'rape', which is defined as non-consensual sex. By definition, nobody wants to be raped. The rapists themselves cannot consent to rape, because that would be consenting to non-consensual sex, which is contradictory.It is certainly not true that people will always want you to do unto them what you'd like them to do unto you, which is why rape is a crime. — bioazer
As stated in a previous post, 'justice among men' is defined as equal treatment. The application of equal treatment can be found objectively, and therefore justice is objective. Then the Golden Rule is simply a derivation of the concept of justice, and is a practical test that ensures we act justly.What is your reasoning for using specifically the Golden Rule? What line of reasoning led you to that "objective" conclusion? — bioazer
A priest teaches a peasant about God.
Peasant: “If I did not know about God and did not worship, would I go to hell?”
Priest: “No, not if you honestly did not know.”
Peasant: “Then why did you tell me?!” — Samuel Lacrampe
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.