Humans are biologically distinct from non-humans yet human biology isn't artificial; — Michael

Yes, my argument hinges on that. Scientists of human origins don't agree with that, but that would take my argument into the weeds.

I can still argue this: there's an ancestral continuum from Homo Sapiens backward. Even if you want to pick a certain point where there was a mutation, this choice for where we draw the moral line is going to be arbitrary. For instance, we know that Homo Sapiens and all our close relatives have a mutation that makes our jaw muscles weak. That would be an objective separating line between us and the other animals. But why would having a weak jaw make us subject to moral rules?

Plus that demarcation will have us holding member of Homo Erectus accountable for all their bullshit.

An EUA is most definitely not the same as the the normal full approval process. — Merkwurdichliebe

The FDA's approval process is mostly paperwork. All the vaccines went through the standard 3 phase clinical trials. These phases check for safety and efficacy. The clinical trials were the reason it took so long to get the vaccine to the population. The actual vaccine was produced in a couple of weeks. That's one of the advantages of the new technology.

That's a challenge for some theory on normative ethics (e.g. utilitarianism, hedonism, etc.). Moral realism is a theory on meta-ethics and so it doesn't need to answer this question. — Michael

Cannibalism was just an example. The question is: is morality only for humans? The idea is that if morality is only for homo sapiens, then morality is artificial because there's an ancestral continuum between humans and their forebears.

If morality is artificial, then moral realism fails.

Most moral realists throughout history didn't have to consider morality for animals because they didn't realize that we emerged from an evolutionary chain. We evolved from an animal that looked like a squirrel, and it evolved ultimately from archaic cells that developed a relationship with mitochondria.

So if it's a continuum, and the archeological record shows that it is, how does moral realism work? Is it immoral for black widow spiders to eat their mates? I think the obvious answer is: no. It's not.

That means we're stuck with this: X is immoral for us. The challenge to moral realism is in asking about what's moral for homo habilis, or homo erectus. They're human. Are they us? Or not? The answer is going to be somewhat artificial, which means morality is artificial.

That one ought not eat babies takes precedence over the argument. — Banno

So if Neanderthals engaged in cannibalism, you would say that was immoral? I'm just asking for the sake of understanding your position.

Civil society is a rigged game, as far as "winners" are concerned. — BC

Do you think it was rigged for Jeff Bezos?

Which paints a different impression of the thread's theme — javra

Thanks for the thought provoking reply. The thread is about the requirements of life, and how those requirements may differ from what we expect or want.

Rhetorical question :wink: Probably. Even to this day. However, they have have certains ways of doing things that seem trustworthy, and those that are suspect...for example, the full approval process versus emergency use authorization for vaccines. — Merkwurdichliebe

They actually did go through the whole standard testing procedure. What was sped up was the paperwork part, which sometimes takes years. Still, this was a radically new technology. It goes in and makes your own cells create features of a lethal virus. I joked to myself when I took it that this is how zombie apocalypses start. I was a little nervous, but I took it because I had spent the previous year planning how I would spend my last functional days if I got covid. I was making little videos of family and friends doing normal things, planning to watch it at the end.

Rules without a rule-giver does seem spurious. — Michael

Plus there's no fact about which rules you've been following all this time. Augustine's solution: Love and do what you will.. No need for a rule-giver. No need for rules at all.

I just have a hard time trusting any of those classic institutions of oppression. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think you've probably been trusting the FDA all your life. How many medications are you on right now?

I mentioned greed, not self-sufficiency.

Wiktionary defines greed as “a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved [...]”. In parallel, Wikipedia states:

Greed (or avarice) is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

... which is in accord to what I was saying and contrary to your disagreement.

Greed is at direct odds with just deserts, aka fair appraisals of merit.

I first want to verify we're addressing the same thing - greed - before bothering to reply further. — javra

I think we're talking about the same thing, it's just that I see good and evil as inextricably intertwined. The knife is a tool and a weapon. That sort of thing.

If you don’t live in a large northern American city, move to one. Then the possibility of another Trump presidency may not seem so daunting. In Chicago, where I live, we now have 4 self-declared socialist alderpersons and a mayor who identifies as a socialist ( or at least as a progressive). Of course their actions in office will likely fall far short of any socialist ideal, but I think it’s very cool that there was such willingness among urban voters to support them. I suspect that as millennials and gen Z’ers become the dominant share of voters, this move to the left in northern cities will continue. Since I don’t plan to live anywhere besides a large liberal city, what happens in Oklahoma or Florida is irrelevant to me. — Joshs

Are you saying I'm wrong that leftism failed? Are you saying you think social safety nets should be expected to expand in the US? That the massive earnings of Wall Street will be used for the welfare of the poorest? That in the foreseeable future the average person will see herself as an American stakeholder?

True, his base is varied. What I was trying to do was fit him into my theory that winners are good for society. Does that work when the winners are wreckers? Are wreckers a symptom of disease? Or do they arrive on time to play their role in transformation?

As you marked Trump as the standard bearer of the Right, it can be noted there are communitarians of the stripe Thatcher appealed to that support him but that crowd does not represent those who are more interested in getting a greater share of the pie from society, whoever is behind the counter. — Paine

I didn't mark Trump that way, although I can understand why you got that impression. I think Trump is just a society wrecker. He was elected, in part, to serve that purpose.

Mythos (1) directly underlies our current global economy: a pyramid structure based on the falsity of infinite growth with infinite resources, driven by materialistic consumerism by the masses, wherein those most greedy (hence, least empathetic toward other’s wellbeing) will always win by being closest to the pyramid’s zenith. — javra

Yes. I agree with this, although I'd say this has been the prevailing mythos for at least a couple of thousand years. It's made us who and what we are.

Mythos (2), however, underlies so much of our global day to day politics of human interaction (what in my anthropology classes was terms politics with a small “p”) so as to be nearly ubiquitous to humankind—and it is the small "p" politics of individual human interactions we all engage in that, in democratic systems at least, results in the prevailing capital "P" political systems by which individuals are then governed. — javra

I don't agree with this. A case of Mythos (2) would be the traditional Russian mir structure, in which the community "owns" the resources and divides them as needed. Sons spend their lives in the shadows of their fathers because there is no advancement, no growth, no change. This was also the spirit of the Bronze age, when crops were brought into the temple to be divided and distributed. Again, there was no growth, no competition, and no change.

I think in our world, self-sufficiency is a requirement everywhere. You have to stand up for yourself even in the family unit. If you don't learn how to do it there, your life prospects are dim.

I'd say that what happened in the 20th Century is an echo of the Bronze Age collapse: Mythos (2) broke down, and Mythos (1) took over, first and foremost to bring the crisis to an end. There was no wicked industrialist on the scene. The myth that supported life prevailed.

My main point here is that—given their direct, logical contradiction—mythos (1) and mythos (2) cannot both be right. This, at least, in so far as depicting that which we ought to strive for for maximal wellbeing. This conflict between the two mythoi being something that underpins a lot of the Trumpist and Leftist (etc., for other perspectives are also present) ambitions in terms of Politics in the US. — javra

Could it be that each has its advantages? That each might be life-giving in the right circumstances?

Don't we still have a five day work week??? — ssu

True. But wasn't that because they discovered that driving the whole populace into the dirt was ultimately dangerous? It leads to Russian revolutions and anarchist antics. It's better to throw a bone to anyone who's likely to stand up for themselves, and let the poorest rot.

Or was it really because of some leftist principles set in action?

How shall we characterize this being? It sounds as fictional as the 'left' you refer to. — Paine

Does it? Do you agree with Thatcher that there is no society?

To me, it looks like they all came to the party with their own supply of dreams. — Paine

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I'm saying: look at human societies the way you look at a troop of baboons. Their social structures orbit the strong, and this is because it's historically been beneficial.

In the case of leader who takes his people in the direction of death, whether it's Trump or it's Hannibal, think of this as natural instead of horrid. The baboon king who leads his troop over the edge of the cliff is serving future generations in that they won't have his bloodline (or that of his followers.) It's more complicated than that, but that's a rough draft.

ut there is plenty of leftism in Europe. — I like sushi

It's all window dressing

as Nietzsche states in BGE 200, the weak always seek repose within those they see as great. — Vaskane

Yea, there's a big dose of Nietzsche in this view.

When it's time for society to be wrecked, the people rally around a wrecker.

Isn't this ignoring the complexity of manipulation? — Christoffer

Fascinating question. Historically, a society's myths and folktales would offer justifications for the social order. If you look at your own culture, you can pick up on these. Some of it was delivered to you in an institutionalized setting, some in the form of entertainment, celebrations, memorial events, etc. It's all around you, and this has been the way humans have done it for thousands upon thousands of years. Is indoctrination inherently wrong or unhealthy?

The only question that is relevant: does the state and nation have enough safeguards against such manipulation? If not, how does the population know they are free or in an authoritarian democracy? — Christoffer

The state engages in what you're calling manipulation. I don't think any society is free of it. Am I wrong?

It sounds like my words bounced off your consciousness and left no trace.

But I'll tell you a story.

There was a guy who recently spent a whole morning nursing an ancient woman into death. Her lungs were shot, she was in her nineties. She was exhausted. Her ancient husband laid in the bed beside her, holding her hand, staring at the ceiling. The dying woman was small, and all her small adult children loitered around. More morphine. More morphine. And now she's finally comfortable and she's basically gone. So the guy removed her support and her body immediately did what it had been trying to do: shut down.

This is life. This is what all living things do. This is sometimes what societies do. So who are you in the story of your society? Are you the part that's dying and flowing out of the world? Are you the adult child, loitering around, saying goodbye? Are you the husband who loved her for a really long time?

Or are you the relative who stands at the bedside and thinks ugly thoughts through the whole thing? I'd say if you're the latter, you're just stuck in your own hell. You can open your heart and love all of it.

My objection would be that "objectively" does nothing here. — Banno

That's your personal issue, though. I don't think anyone else has that problem.

:up:

Right. Moral realists say statements about morality report facts.

The fact we're looking for here is not that people say X is wrong. The fact has to be that X is objectively wrong.

Who thinks this is realism? — hypericin

It's been explained repeatedly that in the context of this thread moral realism is more than truth aptness.

But aren't you alive because of antibiotics? I am.

Or even moral nihilism.
— frank

That is error theory? — Michael

Oh, I guess you're right. Error theory is that all talk of moral realism is in error, right?

I agree with that. It could be that error theory or moral subjectivism are correct. — Michael

Or even moral nihilism.

Are you saying that moral sentences aren't truth-apt or are you saying that moral sentences being truth-apt does not entail moral realism?

I'm not sure who would argue for the latter. Moral sentences being truth-apt also allows for error theory and moral subjectivism. — Michael

Moral statements being truth apt doesn't entail moral realism. If I hold that the truth predicate merely serves a social function, I can accept the truth aptness of moral oughts without any metaphysical implications. I may also reject scrutability of reference, so I don't think "ought" refers any more than any other word. This doesn't interfere with truth aptness.

My understanding of moral realism is that it is the theory that some moral propositions are true in such a way that if everyone believes that they are false then everyone is wrong.

Why can't a moral realist believe this and also be a deflationist? — Michael

A moral realist can believe that and be deflationist. The point is, she started out a moral realist. She did not arrive there by way of argumentation.

The argument in question (that moral statements are truth apt) just has no force to persuade. If you're a moral realist, it's probably because it fits your psychological makeup. There is no argument for it.

I'm going to repeat the two objections to the idea that value statements do not have truth value. — Banno

Nobody said moral statements aren't truth apt. The problem is that's doesn't lead to the moral realism as a conclusion if you're a deflationist.

At least they won’t be lonely. — NOS4A2

Nobody is ever truly alone. You have yourself.

you thought the experience of auditory inner monologue was a German thing? — flannel jesus

Well, I eventually decided that I would have heard of it if it was.

So you hear your own voice. — NOS4A2

The first person I met who had it all the time was German, and there's a German movie where you're hearing the inner voice of each person the camera travels over, so for a while I thought it might be a German thing.

"Regularly" have. I'm shocked it's not close to 100'/. tbh. Let's take an unscientific poll here. — Baden

I can if I want to. It's an odd sensation to turn it off and be aware that you're not letting it start again. It's like floating.

Honesty often makes you vulnerable. It takes some inner strength to embrace that vulnerability, and that's related to your values. For instance, if you've made a mistake and it could impact someone's well being, being honest shows that you care about others.

Sure, although I don't know how statements refer. — Michael

I don't either.

I think of moral realism as the thesis that moral propositions are truth-apt and (attempt to) refer to objective features of the world, and that some such propositions are true. — Michael

Moral anti-realists may also claim that moral statements are truth-apt, so what you have left to distinguish your take on moral realism is that it says moral statements refer to objective features of the world. If you agree to that, we can put the whole issue of truth to the side and just talk about how statements refer, right?

The proposition "Santa does not exist" is true because it corresponds to the state of affairs that Santa does not exist.

The proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is true because it corresponds to the state of affairs that 1 + 1 = 2.

The proposition "one ought not harm another" is true because it corresponds to the state of affairs that one ought not harm another.

I'm not exactly sure what it is you want. If you want to say that a statement is true only if it corresponds to some physical thing, then I would dispute that. Santa not existing and 1 + 1 equalling 2 are not physical things, and yet they definitely are the case. The moral realist will say that that one ought nor harm another is not a physical thing, and yet definitely is the case. — Michael

So we're dispensing with talk of the T-sentence and directions of fit, right? We're now directly addressing this argument for moral realism:

1. premise: Correspondence theory of truth
2. Moral statement M is true.
3. because of correspondence theory, M corresponds to a state of the world.
4. therefore, moral realism.

Do you agree with that? Correspondence theory is not rooted in physicalism. It was first expressed during the "age of essence" by Aristotle. It's blind to ontological commitments.

Edit: except that if you're a physicalist and you endorse correspondence theory, then for you, true statements are going to have to refer to physical things (or things that reduce to the physical.)