As Schopenhauer tells us, the aesthetic response is to what is of no practical significance to us. It is what transports and transforms our consciousness. — Janus

I would say it can be considered of no practical importance to us, because in aesthetic existence, the individual is simply a passive spectator. Without responsibility, there is no teleological imperative.

True, the aesthetic dimension of experience is free of inherent responsibility, and that is probably a part of it's attraction. Although, having said that, when it comes to the natural world, the reverential valuing of it for its own sake may underpin a deep sense of responsibility to conserve it.

Agreed: all models are simply models, and can never be what they are modeling. — Janus

The assumption that models are (or can be) identical to what they are modeling is the biggest mistake that philosophers make. And in fact, much of what philosophy does is posit and examine models of existence. It is nothing but immature naivety whenever one subscribes to a single perspective, and argues as if it is the only correct perspective or explains everything.

:up:

Obviously, morally significant behavior has actual effects on people's lives, in fact that is what defines it. — Janus

You're not claiming that people's lives do not have a mental component, presumably. So how is this evidence of moral significance being extramental?

The source of morals cannot be found in human biology, therefore the belief that it can is rubbish.
— praxis

Morals have to be found in biology, because they can't occur elsewhere. To occur elsewhere, we'd need meaning, preferences, etc. to be able to occur elsewhere, but they don't occur elsewhere. They're brain phenomena. — Terrapin Station

What you quote is my interpretation of S’s illustrious analogy and not something I would say, in case that isn’t clear.

Anyway, I think it’s time to invoke the idiom that you can’t catch wind in a jar. The results would be as inadequate as a car without wings.

So what's your scientific explanation of why moral stances are a phenomenon that can't occur in brains?

As it is said, there is no good answer to a stupid question.

I'm not a scientist and strongly doubt such scientific studies exist. Also, I didn't claim that moral stances can't occur in brains.

My turn. Is moral order or moral frameworks biological?

Fuck. No.
Id have given up a while back.

Poor championless S.

Your pity is misplaced: He is His Own Champion, a Legend in His Own Mind.

If A causes B, it doesn't imply that A is identical to B, does it?

And if A is not identical to B, then A or, whatever makes A obtain, isn't literally the source of B, because we only have B elsewhere. How does it make sense to say that A is the source of B when A isn't itself B? — Terrapin Station

Why does a cause have to be identical to what it causes? This makes no sense me, what is the utility of thinking about it that way?
When I light a match, the chemicals on the end are the source of the flame, aren’t they? The alternative is what, that B is the source of B? The lit matches fire came from...fire? Heat?

There are numerous studies, where some here assume there are none, on the investigation of morality in a neurological sense:

https://scholar.google.com.vn/scholar?q=neuroscience+study+of+morality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

You're not claiming that people's lives do not have a mental component, presumably. So how is this evidence of moral significance being extramental? — Terrapin Station

Talking past each other again?

What you quote is my interpretation of S’s illustrious analogy and not something I would say, in case that isn’t clear. — praxis

Have you tried a more charitable interpretation? That might help. Or maybe just reading what I said?

Your pity is misplaced: He is His Own Champion, a Legend in His Own Mind. — Janus

:wink: :point:

I haven't read that, or any other scientific studies on the matter, and I'm largely ignorant of science, but it must be inadequate.

Apparently that's what passes for good philosophy these days. Take note, people.

I have always found it counterintuitive that a biological organism would naturally evolve a neurological mechanism (viz. emotion) that would override the fundamental survival instinct in which evolutionary biology is based. I have considered that evolution has made it this far on the merits of survival-of-the-fittest in relation to an adversarial world. So, perhaps emotion is just a more sophisticated form of survival instinct. But that wouldn't explain how a total stranger would react empathically by sacrificing himself to save another (say for example, as soldiers have been known to do during battle).

Or, maybe I have it wrong, and perhaps those emotions which are associated with altruism and selflessness merely belong to those people who are most unfit for survival, and it is only a matter of time before emotion is phased out by our evolutionary development. But then I am forced to consider why evolution would develop such a redundant mechanism as emotion to begin with.

I am interested how such concerns can be resolved.

When it comes to social animals I think it has to do, not with the survival of lone individuals, where competition would be paramount, but with the survival of packs, herds, flocks or communities, where cooperation is foremost in, ultimately, making it more likely that the individuals who belong to those social collectives will survive.

I think it is emotion in the form of "fellow feeling": affection, empathy or love, as well as self-interest in the form of fear of ostracization, that ensures cooperation within animal and human collectives. It is for this reason that I say that valuing or caring about what binds the collective, and behaving, and for self-reflective beings such as ourselves, even thinking, in terms of that, is what is right and good for social animals; it is simply the best strategy.

Thanks. I'm happy to see that their are some who have the courage to answer questions clearly and directly.

So, it is correct to say social animals have a greater chance of long term survival. That is, each species has moved beyond the immediate survival instinct to some degree. The primary stimulus for the behavior of the social animals can be attributed to "emotion in the form of 'fellow feeling [toward the pack]': affection, empathy"...at least to some degree.

To be clear, I was asking this in the context of: what is the source of morals?

Now, turning to the self-reflective being, although he possesses the same survival instinct as any other social animal (qua. survival of his tribe), he is able to negate his necessary biological relation to the group through self reflection. In this, he discovers he is a sovereign individual who, in essence, stands alone from the group.

When the self-reflective being derives its reality from the group, it would seem that biology is the primary determinant. However, when he transcends his relation to the group, could it be said, he liberates
himself and takes upon a new form of existence which is qualitatively antithetical to the mechanistic determinations of biology?

If so, at this stage the reflective being has moved past the immediate survival instinct, through the social instinct (where the individual's biological relation to the group determines his behavior), and into the understanding that he is capable of determining his own behavior independent from the group. Here an aesthetic assessment has been made. The instant the self-relfective being realizes the smallest extent of his agency, he is confronted with the primary choice: to remain subservient to the group, or to take responsibility for himself (which may, on occasion, require him to conform to the group). Perhaps he enters the ethical sphere by choosing the latter?

Hopefully this moves us further along in our examination of the topic. Please feel free to correct any of my ellipses of reason, or to go further if you will.

As it is said, there is no good answer to a stupid question. — Janus

Then the analogy invoked makes no sense, because the idiom in question is only coherent due to a scientific reason that we can easily explain.

Why does a cause have to be identical to what it causes? This makes no sense me, what is the utility of thinking about it that way? — DingoJones

I agree, it is a foolish mistake that is commonly made by seemingly intelligent people.

survival-of-the-fittest

Generally speaking that has next to nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution. The term was not coined by Darwin either (just in case you thought it was) and Darwin’s perspective is an old one that has been developed much further - as all scientific theories are.

There are a lot of misconceptions that have been carried into the modern era along with behavioralism that are still clinging on due the steady progression of scientific research - old ideas die hard!

Point being in regards to this pondering:

But then I am forced to consider why evolution would develop such a redundant mechanism as emotion to begin with.

No evolutionary scientist in their right mind would suggest there is or isn’t a particular reason or path to develop along. A guess in simple terms “shit happens,” but admittedly many have puzzled over the point of “consciousness” in evolutionary beneficial terms - again, another case of self-hoodwinking simply because we’re ill at ease with any suggestion of “shit just happens” regardless of how much truth there is in such a position (because we’re effectively wired to apply meaning where and when we can; even where in the common sense of the term “meaning” there is none).

Note: You may find the idea of “spandrels” interesting in regards to evolutionary bio.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

I'm not a scientist and strongly doubt such scientific studies exist. Also, I didn't claim that moral stances can't occur in brains. — praxis

Then the analogy would simply be arbitrary.

Is moral order or moral frameworks biological? — praxis

Yes. Anything moral is going to be. Saying that "x is moral," either as a judgment (contra immoral, for example) or as a conceptual application (as opposed to gastronomic, say), which are the two common ways to use that phrase, are necessarily biological, because it's only biology that makes judgments, or that formulates and applies concepts.

Very interesting. I'm gonna have to research it a little more.

Why does a cause have to be identical to what it causes? — DingoJones

It has to be if we're trying to say that since A causes or is a cause of B, then A is the source of B. "The source of" is another way of saying "Where it comes from" or "Where it originates", "Where it arises from" or "What is B properties of." If A causes/is a cause of B, but A isn't identical to B, then we don't actually have B yet when we have A, so naming A doesn't tell us where/what/how B happens to be. This is actually because something else has to be necessary for B--some other substance, and/or process and/or context, etc. If that weren't the case, then A would be identical to B.

When I light a match, the chemicals on the end are the source of the flame, aren’t they? — DingoJones

No, because there's something else involved in the flame. The chemicals at the end aren't sufficient to be the flame. So we can't say they're the source. We'd be missing something in our explanation. We need to explain just how/where the flame, qua the flame, obtains.

If someone asks you "What is the source of the flame" and you answer "the chemicals on the end of the match," that wouldn't be sufficient, because the chemicals at the end of the match aren't a flame. The person who asked could point at a match, point at the chemicals at the end, and say, "What the hell are you talking about, there's no flame here." And they'd be right. It's not just the chemicals at the end of the match, but processes, too, and the chemical changes that happen due to those processes. That is the source of the flame. You can't conflate something with causes, preconditions or prerequisites for it.

When I light a match, the chemicals on the end are the source of the flame — DingoJones

Less causes

It's not just the chemicals at the end of the match, but processes, too, and the chemical changes that happen due to those processes. That is the source of the flame. — Terrapin Station

More causes

in

Well, you have to say what B is identical to (if we don't say what B is identical to then we're not actually referring to B, but something different than B). That's not the same as causes unless we're saying that something can cause itself.

I think we agree on this point.