I guess we’ll never know your accounting. :sad: — praxis

No, speak for yourself. Others are probably capable enough not to be struggling with the problem in understanding that you're having, and I've explained that this problem of yours is due to your own misunderstanding of what my explanation does and doesn't do.

I've already said it as simply and as clearly as possible: "we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently". And then I've explained that this can be explained through neuroscience. The only problem here would be if you were to weirdly assume that we all have identical brains which work in identical ways in the same sort of circumstances, which is so obviously false that it is hardly worth dealing with, and yet I'm generously wasting my own valuable time in doing so, only for you to respond with comments like the above, which just reinforce your own misunderstanding without really lifting a finger to help yourself.

Why don't you just apply some common sense and use the internet to educate yourself? Why don't you just not make a frankly silly assumption, like that we're all clones, and then try to push the faux-problem of explaining why we're not onto me?

"we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently". — S

Ethical orientations aren't a matter of taste. They are based on deep convictions. The ethical arises from an assumption on how the world appears to the individual, how he believes the world should be, and finally with a judgement upon himself regarding whether he is conformed to the world as it appears, or as it should be. This process isn't so trivial and fleeting as say, being horny.

Ethical orientations aren't a matter of taste. They are based on deep convictions. — Merkwurdichliebe

Why do people do this? Seriously? What is this? Preaching to the choir or straw man?

Why do people do this? Seriously? What is this? Preaching to the choir or straw man? — S

It's called the philosophy forums. Don't be so agitated.

It's called the philosophy forums. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not plural.

And that doesn't answer any of my questions. If you're suggesting that preaching to the choir and straw men are just part of doing philosophy, then yes, unfortunately so, but it's not good philosophy, is it?

Don't be so agitated. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then submit better replies. If I seem agitated, that usually means that you're doing something wrong.

:sad: no

First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from — hachit

Long term > Short term

So Right is what is optimal for the long term (exercise, healthy diet, helping others)

Wrong is what is optimal for the short term (sweets, laziness, harming others)

Why don't you just not make a frankly silly assumption, like that we're all clones, and then try to push the faux-problem of explaining why we're not onto me? — S

I'd like to propose a different sort of silliness. Imagine, if you will, someone cloning you and then placing the cloned baby S into a very different culture than the one you grew up in. Cloned baby S would adopt whatever conceptual order or abstract principles, or whatever mysterious extra-mental phenomenon that exists in that culture. Let's say for the example that the culture is cannibalistic. Let's also assume for the example that you're not a cannibal and believe that cannibalism is immoral, if only marginally. Both you and cloned baby S started out with practically the same neurology or limbic system, yet cloned baby S is cool with eating people and you, we assume, find it immoral.

Essentially the same physiology yet two very different moral frameworks. Clearly, it is inadequate to say that the mind or limbic system is the source of morals because it cannot account for vast differences in moral frameworks. Saying "we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently" isn't explaining or accounting for the differences.

Essentially the same physiology yet two very different moral frameworks — praxis

Cannibalism has consequences. The culture that is cannibalistic is doing the wrong thing so would be shunned and punished by other cultures. So in effect the same moral framework applies to both cultures - cannibals are punished. Hence cannibalism is not popular.

So pressure from the peer group - in this case other cultures - ensures that we have a communally shared sense of right and wrong.

None of that negates the fact that lil cloned baby S would love eating people. Perhaps with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

But I'd argue he would enjoy eating people only in the short term - characteristic of a wrong decision.

In the long term, S and his cannibalistic culture would likely be punished - again characteristic of a wrong decision.

Long term > short term so the right decision is not to eat people (to avoid punishment in the long term).

Essentially the same physiology yet two very different moral frameworks. Clearly, it is inadequate to say that the mind or limbic system is the source of morals because it cannot account for vast differences in moral frameworks. — praxis

Great point.

I'd like to propose a different sort of silliness. Imagine, if you will, someone cloning you and then placing the cloned baby S into a very different culture than the one you grew up in. Cloned baby S would adopt whatever conceptual order or abstract principles, or whatever mysterious extra-mental phenomenon that exists in that culture. Let's say for the example that the culture is cannibalistic. Let's also assume for the example that you're not a cannibal and believe that cannibalism is immoral, if only marginally. Both you and cloned baby S started out with practically the same neurology or limbic system, yet cloned baby S is cool with eating people and you, we assume, find it immoral. — praxis

It seems as if you're unaware that people in the same family, including twins, even, can and often do have completely different moral views.

I'd like to propose a different sort of silliness. Imagine, if you will, someone cloning you and then placing the cloned baby S into a very different culture than the one you grew up in. Cloned baby S would adopt whatever conceptual order or abstract principles, or whatever mysterious extra-mental phenomenon that exists in that culture. Let's say for the example that the culture is cannibalistic. Let's also assume for the example that you're not a cannibal and believe that cannibalism is immoral, if only marginally. Both you and cloned baby S started out with practically the same neurology or limbic system, yet cloned baby S is cool with eating people and you, we assume, find it immoral.
— praxis

It seems as if you're unaware that people in the same family, including twins, even, can and often do have completely different moral views. — Terrapin Station

It seems as if you're unaware that moral views in the same culture can vary. And "completely different" in the culture that I've lived in would include something like cannibalism, so I suppose you don't mean all that different.

People in the same family, who interact with the same adults, go to the same school, have the same teachers, have many of the same friends, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, etc. can have very different moral views, and yes, those views can include things like "Cannibalism is/isn't okay"

I can reiterate also. Cultures, particularly in the Information Age, can accommodate a range of moral views and values. Even so, this range is limited to known concepts. You can’t know or adopt a view that doesn’t exist in your culture.

There is also norms. A psychopath, for example, may have abhorrent (to their culture) moral views but can nevertheless function well in society because they know and understand moral norms, even though they’re not emotionally effected by them.

It’s possible that my brother could have been a psychopath who enjoys cannibalism but he would still know that it’s immoral in our society, and he would be an anomaly.

I can reiterate also. Cultures, particularly in the Information Age, can accommodate a range of moral views and values. — praxis

How are we getting a range in the example I'm explaining?

With the exchange of information.

Maybe rephrasing the question would result in a more satisfying answer.

With the exchange of information. — praxis

What exchange of information?

I think you can safely jump to the point.

This is the point; at the moment at least. What exchange of information?

First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from. — hachit

An alternative approach:

In my view, we start life with the need to increase awareness, interconnectedness and overall development and achievement.

This alternative path of evolution leads to developing the most detailed picture of a relation to the environment, including what combinations of stimuli (experiences) are preferred - what the various systems of the organism are drawn to. This has lead to recognition of diverse preferences, and then to developing a system of value so that preferences can be arranged into some sort of hierarchy according to what becomes a constructed idea of ‘self’.

The problem is that this ‘self’ has different priorities to the ‘overall’ development and achievement to which all matter is inherently oriented (IMO). This conflict rapidly develops into a battle between the ‘self’ and its environment (or God) for dominance/authority, and our experience of suffering begins.

We are taught that we need to continue our species’ existence - it is NOT inherent, but a fearful denial that fights to maintain ‘self’ as the apparent priority, based on preferences observed within the organism that are determined from a very limited awareness of the universe.

Our morality is a dialectic between what the ‘self’ prefers and what our current awareness of (and interconnection with) the universe informs us about this ‘overall’ development and achievement we should be working towards.

The more we interconnect with other experiences of a similar morality - and attack, deny or oppress instances of diverging morality - the stronger our apparent position. The more we interconnect openly with a diverse morality with a view to increasing awareness, the more our own morality will broaden to reflect a commitment to development and achievement on a more universal scale.

But it comes with experiences of pain, humiliation and loss to the physical, genetic, social, cultural and ideological ‘self’...

a very different culture — praxis

So then obviously they would have two very different experiences.

yet cloned baby S is cool with eating people and you, we assume, find it immoral. — praxis

Yes, obviously. And their brains would most probably respond in different ways in response to this. They would react with different emotions.

Cloned baby S would adopt whatever conceptual order or abstract principles, or whatever mysterious extra-mental phenomenon that exists in that culture. — praxis

Would you just give up trying to distort my meaning in an attempt to refute what I said? It won't work. Of course there'd be external factors which influence our moral judgement. I never denied this. Why would you think that I was suggesting that our brains don't respond to external stimuli?

I think our moral compass is set by what we regard as our community - we do things that are acceptable (=moral) as defined by our community.

The most usual definition of 'our community' might be the human race - we do things that are morally acceptable to the human race.

Vegetarians might define there community to include animals as well as humans - they do things that are acceptable to animals and humans.

Your idea is good but when I use this Idea

We are taught that we need to continue our species’ existence - it is NOT inherent,

I run into the problem were the first learn it from, after all life seems pointless in the light of reason alone. Sure people my say we learn it from a deity but some of them (if they were really) don't seem to care about human life.

I think our moral compass is set by what we regard as our community - we do things that are acceptable (=moral) as defined by our community.

Then explain how some people develop new moral on there own, because if you are correct morals set and no new ones can be created.

it also makes some human actions unexplained specific the rise of atheism because theism for the longest time was a crime.

Our morals stem from biological emotional feedback that has its roots in how we function as pack animals. If you want the most basic causality start for our sense of morality, there it is.

From that, because we are intelligent enough to analyze our own perception of the world, we conceptualize our emotional response to actions and relations into models of principles.

These models are the foundation for moral theories and moral guidelines.

Since people have different experiences, different emotions, personality types, etc. different models are in conflict with each other, raising moral ideal conflicts. These conflicts can be between individuals or groups which have organized models for the group. I.e individual morals and doctrine morals.

The morals that we sense to be basic, like "don't kill each other" basically stem from the emotional care of the group. It's easy to corrupt by putting the care for the group against the invasion of another group, meaning war with another group, killing the other group can be justified to be morally good because it's morally good to care for the group you defend.

That's why ethics is a hard topic since it's easily corrupted by the context it exists under. I do, however, propose there to be a way of inducing a set of basic morals by examining humanity as a species. It's when we examine morals while corrupting the examination with our own personal morals, that we fail to explain morality in any rational way. And if we examine morals while corrupted by institutionalized moral values, we are essentially limited in our thinking to that of a puppet of that institution.

Then explain how some people develop new moral on there own, because if you are correct morals set and no new ones can be created. — hachit

I think morality could evolve as your community or sense of community evolves. I already mentioned the example of vegetarianism - including animals in your definition of community changes your morality.

Developing morals on their own... people learn with time. Specifically, they learn that long term > short term so what right is what is right in the long term (not short term). So typically it takes willpower to make a right decision because you sacrifice the short term for the long term. So willpower is another variable that could change causing someones morality to change.

The morals that we sense to be basic, like "don't kill each other" basically stem from the emotional care of the group — Christoffer

Many problems in society seem to stem from an inappropriate definition of the group/community. For example, regarding the group as 'your country' rather than 'the human race' tends to lead to conflicts of interest and war. Leaving animals out of the group, leads to ill-treatment of animals. Etc...

I think morality could evolve as your community or sense of community evolves. — Devans99

Yes, but this was about the source of morals. The source is emotional, vegetarians evolve morals based on their emotional feedback towards other animals. They also view killing animals for food to be morally wrong. Some of them, extremists, might even kill other people in a way they feel is morally good because they killed someone that kills animals. Morals are easily corrupted if not examined and understood.

So willpower is another variable that could change causing someones morality to change. — Devans99

Willpower is irrelevant if a deep understanding of human psychology and biology as roots for moral values are ignored. Deep understanding of ethics is required before willpower to act upon such balanced moral values.

Many problems in society seem to stem from an inappropriate definition of the group/community. For example, regarding the group as 'your country' rather than 'the human race' tends to lead to conflicts of interest and war. Leaving animals out of the group, leads to ill-treatment of animals. Etc... — Devans99

In order to find a balanced moral, people need to exclude any idea of "group", since thinking in terms of groups limits the causal concepts of moral choices. I.e however you choose a group as a framework for moral choices, it excludes something else. If we think about our planet and all life on earth we might exclude other life in the universe. This is why it's complicated as thinking "too big" locks any morals into unknowns.

It might be that the most moral way to induce good values is to include most groups as possible and that in itself is a morally responsible way of thinking. That there is morality to how we should think about morality, not just the moral choice and act itself.

Willpower is irrelevant if a deep understanding of human psychology and biology as roots for moral values are ignored. Deep understanding of ethics is required before willpower to act upon such balanced moral values. — Christoffer

Doing the right thing takes willpower because the right thing is often painful in the short term. Exercise, eating healthy, helping others are examples. Contrast with eating sweets - the wrong thing to - is attractive to people of low willpower - because it is short term pleasure in exchange for long term pain.

This is why it's complicated as thinking "too big" locks any morals into unknowns. — Christoffer

I think perfecting your morals includes adopting a definition of group as 'all sentient life' - leading to respect for all sentient life.