Exploitation is speaking to the competitive element of the dynamic, but painting it as something more negative - an issue that needs to be addressed by adding constraints against cheaters. — apokrisis
Competition becomes immoral when it is exploitative. More work is needed to clarify when that is. — Mark S
Ought we want to live harmoniously in a community? — Banno
↪Mark S Ninth thread on the same topic; same problem as the first thread:
At the core, that we do cooperate does not imply that we ought cooperate.
— Banno — Banno
Right, People commonly desire the benefits of cooperation, are willing to follow moral norms that preserve that cooperation, and can agree on benefits of cooperation to pursue. Understanding morality as cooperation strategies opens a new perspective for refining cultural moral norms to meet human needs better. The illusion of the reality of imperative oughts is an aspect of our evolutionary past. It is not necessary, and is arguably a hindrance, to refining cultural moral norms to increase human flourishing.At the core, that we do cooperate does not imply that we ought cooperate.
— Banno
We ought to cooperate to socially and personally acceptable degrees if we want to live harmoniously in a community. — Janus
Why do you imagine that is a problem... — Mark S
At the core, that we do cooperate does not imply that we ought cooperate. — Banno
Why do you imagine that is a problem...
— Mark S
Just checking the pretence that science tells us what we ought to do, highlighting a point you yourself made, that "...the science of morality cannot tell us what our goals somehow ought to be".
There is extensive literature on this other, much more difficult puzzle, unaddressed by your approach.
3 hours ago — Banno
In individual sports, the color of your shorts is irrelevant. In team sports, the color matters - a lot. The color of people's shorts (or uniform) is a quick way to recognize your teammates and an example of a marker strategy.Do you run your marathon in green shorts or blue? Who could even find a reason to care? — apokrisis
Interesting that you mention Philippa Foot, a philosopher who perhaps above all others showed us the intractable nature of moral questions. — Banno
You say you "post here to understand better how to present conclusions from the science of morality to people familiar with moral philosophy but perhaps not with this science". You seem to think you are providing "answers from science", and are puzzled by their reception. Perhaps what you propose is not as novel to those old fuddy duddies as you supposed, and perhaps the questions they are asking are not the questions you are answering. — Banno
It's not so much that what you have provided is wrong, as that it is so very incomplete. — Banno
Indeed, in so far as what you offer encourages the development of the virtues, we are in agreement. But it should be of concern to you that what you espouse might be used to explain away acts of collective, perfunctory evil, as easily as it does acts of virtue. — Banno
Perhaps you might begin to see that there is more going on here than you might previously have supposed. — Banno
I dunno if there is much point. Whatever I say will sound condescending. I presume you are at least aware of the discussion of is-ought in Ethics... what you call the "bottom-up" is an example of the naturalistic fallacy in which it is presumed that what we ought do is just what we have previously done. Gather whatever data you like and normalise it how you will, it does not tell us what we should do... — Banno
As for living in harmony with one's nature, that leaves much hanging. Should one live in harmony with one's nature, as a Stoic might say, or stand against it, as Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard &c. would have it... And if we were to discuss these chaps, then we would be doing philosophy. — Banno
what you call the "bottom-up" is an example of the naturalistic fallacy in which it is presumed that what we ought do is just what we have previously done. — Banno
without telling us what to do? You commence your argument in the bailey of right and wrong, but when challenged retreat to the motte of supposed "objective science".about right and wrong — Mark S
The only person presuming that science tells us what we imperatively ought to do (the only person committing the naturalistic fallacy) is you. You alone are making this error.
I have repeatedly emphasized that this science, like the rest of science, can only supply instrumental oughts and is silent on ultimate goals. — Mark S
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.