But if it did ‘make sense’ to you, nothing you’ve said would prevent you from so doing. You’re not describing a moral code

But if it did ‘make sense’ to you, nothing you’ve said would prevent you from so doing. You’re not describing a moral code — Wayfarer

If a moral code didn't make sense, it wouldn't be followed.

A moral code can be a set of principles of ethical conduct established by an individual for that individual (Dictionary.com, Definitions.net). Ethics is concerned with what is good and bad, right and wrong. (Britannica.com)

If something doesn't make sense to me then I avoid doing it.

I think that it is good that I avoid doing something that doesn't make sense to me. I think that I am right in avoiding doing something that doesn't make sense to me.

What I think good and right of necessity follows from what makes sense to me.

Morality is not an abstract concept that has no bearing on how I live my life, but is a concrete concept directly related to my relationship with the world.

If being good made no sense, and if doing the right thing made no sense, neither being good nor doing the right thing would be part of my moral code.

I have a personal moral code precisely because some things make sense and some things don't.

The capacity to grasp what could be, might be, or should be, is what distinguishes humans from other species. — Wayfarer

There are examples now showing an animal's ability to grasp what might be.

From Crows could be the smartest animal other than primates

Crows have long been considered cunning. But their intelligence may be far more advanced than we ever thought possible.
Crows, in fact, might be like us not so much because they are clever (and so are we) but rather because they sometimes engage their cleverness simply for fun – and so do we.
The crows McCoy studies have a natural curiosity, she says. They cheekily grab scientific equipment and fly off with it in the aviary. Young birds especially, she says, love to play.
That said, “clever” animals can sometimes perform tasks beyond those strictly demanded by nature.

From Are crows the ultimate problem solvers? - Inside the Animal Mind: Episode 2 - BBC

The bird is familiar with the individual objects, but this is the first time he's seen them arranged like this. 8 separate stages, that must be completed in a specific order if the puzzle is to be solved.

The ability to work through 8 separate stages in a specific order infers that more than a simplistic instinct is at play.

The capacity to grasp what might be is now being found in animals other than humans.

There is evidence that some animals can be altruistic. Altruism is linked with having a conscience.

Altruism is the concern for the well-being of others, independently of personal benefit or reciprocity (Wikipedia). Having a conscience is being aware of the moral goodness of one's own conduct (Merriam Webbster)

From Are Animals Altruistic?
.

Take African grey parrots, for example: A recent study revealed that they voluntarily gave the tokens they were trained to exchange for food to parrots that had no tokens. The biologists who conducted this study were surprised when they realized that the parrots seemed to have a genuine understanding of when and why their partners needed their help—they would rarely give the tokens over when the window to exchange them for food was closed.

The concern for the well-being of others is an example of moral behaviour

Having a conscience is being aware when one should be being altruistic towards others but for some reason isn't.

If the African grey parrot has an understanding of when and why their partners needed their help, but doesn't provide any help for whatever reason, being torn between ought to do something but not doing something is the hallmark of having a conscience.

This is not to say that a parrots sense of morality equals that of a human, but does suggest that the parrot has a glimmer of morality, and consequently the glimmer of a conscience.

Humans are animals after all. The human animal evolved from non-human animals. The human animal didn't appear ready-formed from nowhere.

I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition.
— philosch

Hmmm...
... no, I think I disagree, with that statement. Here's how I would phrase it:

Nature is perceived as true because nature is true, period.
— Arcane Sandwich — Arcane Sandwich

I was going to write it exactly as you have but I didn't want to use such forceful language. It's essentially what I meant.

They can do something that is artificial, cultural. They can create artifacts. Cultural objects, so to speak.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature
— philosch

The boundaries of nature...
... what would they even be?
Artifice, perhaps.
Divinity, perhaps.
Mathematics, perhaps.
Hmmm...
... I don't like the word "perhaps". Too formal. A better term is "maybe". — Arcane Sandwich

Well you are making my point or in some way setting a definition of nature with boundaries with words like artificial for instance. In my view artificial has a meaning but in the context of this discussion I would submit it's still within the purview of the natural world. Take an artificial limb for instance. In the common everyday use of the term here, it's well understood to mean a limb that is not biological and has replaced something that was natural, (in this case) meaning organic and original. But in the larger context of this discussion I argue that it's still within the totality of "nature" as it exists and is made of matter that was manipulated by other objects of nature, namely people. I view this as a contextual or categorical problem that Sean Carroll talks about in his book "The Big Picture". That is how it can be viewed as both "un-natural" and within "nature" at the same time. Not contradictory but context dependent.

I have a personal moral code precisely because some things make sense and some things don't. — RussellA

Yet people do things that do not make sense all the time. Indeed, things that are very bad for them, things that ruin their lives, and even things that kill them. We say some of these people are addicts, and that addiction is a disorder or disease. Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder?

Yet people do things that do not make sense all the time. Indeed, things that are very bad for them, things that ruin their lives, and even things that kill them. We say some of these people are addicts, and that addiction is a disorder or disease. Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder? — Patterner

(I realize your question is somewhat rhetorical but I'll take a stab at an answer anyway).

No of course not. We are human and therefore prone to contradiction, impulsive behavior based on emotional states and more. If we were all walking around acting rationally in our own or even society's best interests, the world would be much better off but also much less interesting and I say much less satisfying emotionally. The eternal, internal struggle we all carry within us is the war between our emotional and rational minds. And the degree to which each of us acts one way or another is directly proportional to how much sway we give to each mind along with our individual talent for being rational and/or expressing our emotional side in constructive and sensible ways. Of course our environment, experiences and mental health factor in as well but that's the gist of why we appear to act non-sensibly or against our own self interests. Or in fact we may have a disorder...LOL.

Bill Clinton is an excellent example. Who in the world is being watched more closely, and has less reason to think they can get away with anything, than the POTUS? Who has more important things to do than the POTUS? And he was married, to boot. But there he was, having his fun with Monica.

Humans are animals after all. The human animal evolved from non-human animals. The human animal didn't appear ready-formed from nowhere. — RussellA

H.Sapiens are different in a way that makes an enormous difference. The fact that this is something modern culture can’t acknowledge is a cultural blind spot. I think it's because what is described nowadays as philosophy doesn't have the foundational concepts required to comprehend why it's important.

That's true.

Of course it's true that h.sapiens didn't 'appear from nowhere'. But if you read up on evolutionary theory, the changes that accompanied the development of an upright gait and the comparatively large forebrain happened very rapidly in comparative terms. A complicating factor was that the pelvis and birth canal of hominids with an upright gait was dramatically more confined than in that of prior species, which is the reason the h.sapiens skull is soft at the time of birth and only gradually hardens during the first few years of infancy. A major consequence of that is birth is much more difficult and painful, and the rates of maternal mortality far higher, amongst h.sapiens than among their predecessor species (very low amongst chimps, for example). And it's difficult to see how the advantages conferred by the larger brain would immediately offset the higher female mortality rates. Almost as if a lot of sacrifices were being made to allow for the evolution of a species, the brain of whom is orders of magnitude more developed than any others. For what? So they can declare that they're actually not very different ;-)

(Ref Why Us? How Science Re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves, James le Fanu.)

↪Arcane Sandwich Of course it's true — Wayfarer

Then why have you been giving me such a difficult time for the past 2 or 3 months concerning the idealism vs materialism debate? I already told you that I respect your beliefs! :scream:

It's a discussion, that's all. In the context, I was responding to RussellA's re-statement of the unparalleled brilliance of the Caledonian Crow.

The point I'm trying to get it, is that while it's true, of course, that h.sapiens evolved from simian forbears, during the course of evolution, a threshold was crossed which makes humans very different from other species. But every time I say that, the response is, hey, caledonian crows can count! What makes you think we're so special? Which is what I'm saying is the 'blind spot'.

The point I'm trying to get it, is that while it's true, of course, that h.sapiens evolved from simian forbears, during the course of evolution, a threshold was crossed which makes humans very different from other species. But every time I say that, the response is, hey, caledonian crows can count! What makes you think we're so special? Which is what I'm saying is the 'blind spot'. — Wayfarer

"Different" is certainly an understatement. We are leaps and bounds above any other species of this planet.

We are leaps and bounds above any other species of this planet. — Patterner

No, we're not. You're not above a shark. Not when you swim under it.

Which is what I'm saying is the 'blind spot'. — Wayfarer

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you?

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

What's the difference between disrespecting someone's beliefs and disagreeing with them? Is it just a matter of not telling them you disagree and why? Should arrant dogma be respected?

What's the difference between disrespecting someone's beliefs and disagreeing with them? — Janus

You shoulda lerned that in school, mate.

You didn't get the point. Should beliefs alone (in the absence of respectable argument) be respected in the context of discussion?

↪Arcane Sandwich You didn't get the point. — Janus

And whose fault is that?

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. Are you going to answer the question?

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

Did I say that you were? There's nothing to be defensive about. I was responding to your comment simply to make a general point, I wasn't taking a shot at you.

Did I say that you were? — Wayfarer

You implied and keep implying that Bunge is wrong.

I wasn't taking a shot at you. — Wayfarer

• Gee, thanks for not shooting me, I suppose I should say.

↪Arcane Sandwich I didn't say it was anyone's fault. — Janus

I'm just asking.

It's a simple question.

Are you going to answer the question? — Janus

What question?

The question in the first response to you from me in this thread.

Would you mind proving a link to it?

We are leaps and bounds above any other species of this planet.
— Patterner

No, we're not. You're not above a shark. Not when you swim under it. — Arcane Sandwich

I hadn't expected anyone to take what I said to mean above in relation to Earth's gravitational pull. But if that's the example you want to use, the vastly overwhelming majority of humans are above the vastly overwhelming majority of sharks at all times. You would do better to use probably most any flying species.

You would do better to use probably most any flying species. — Patterner

And if I don't want to?

Don't worry about it.

I never did :)

I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire: — Arcane Sandwich