I’m going to step up for Shodan here (I think that’s a first :D). As I understand his argument, he’s not arguing that morals are based in religion, he’s arguing that the premises of all moral systems are things that are to be accepted without further evidence and have no discernable “underlying objective morality”.
So far, I’ve not seen anyone posit a system for which that doesn’t hold - with the possible exception of dzero who seems to be going for a morality based on the intersection of all other moral systems. Which I’m not sure exists or would be any more objective than any of the others.
Yeah, but so is every thought and emotion. Just because we like it does not mean it’s moral. If you agree or not, that’s a premise you have to take on faith.
My morals are based on what I have observed, experienced and reasoned out throughout my life. Therefore, they sometimes change. When new information comes to light I have to adjust my thinking and moral reasoning while integrating the new information. I have concrete reasons for why I believe this, that or the other thing is moral or immoral. In other words, my morals are not based on somebody else telling me what my morals SHOULD be.
For example, I find it morally repugnant to keep alive a terminally ill person or a person with chronic pain if they wish to die. We euthanize our pets out of a sense of moral obligation to ease their suffering, yet we refuse that same compassion to our loved ones. That sickens me on a very basic level.
I find it morally repugnant to have baby after baby when you are incapable of supporting yourself, let alone a child.
There’s nothing to agree or disagree with. Morality is an aesthetic like taste in beer. The word is a descriptor for emotional responses and nothing more. It has no objective existence at all. It’s purely subjective.
An exaggeration. It’s more like a preference for beer, PCP, or poison; there’s no law-of-physics style “objective” reason why one is to be preferred to the other; but ingesting PCP or poison is going to have a much different result than drinking a beer.
Ok, I can see this stance. But regardless of the proverb (at least, there is one in Dutch), one can agree and disagree on taste. It doesn’t make morality objective, it makes it purely subjective. Or were you not replying to my post #41 in your post #42?
Do I understand you correctly in that you claim your personal morality is the “correct” one for everyone else? Or is there some kind of appeal to other people’s emotions (“brain chemistry”) involved? Since you’re not exactly known for ignoring other people who have objectively nothing to do with you personally when making moral judgments.
The only morality I operate by is my own. The same goes for everybody else. If my moral intuition conflicts with someone else’s, then mine is the correct one. I operate as if I am the sole arbitrator of right and wrong. The only moral authority I really have is my own conscience. If I can’t depend on that, then I can’t depend on anything.
Everybody else does the same thing,whether they think of it that way or not. All morality is ultimately autonomous. Even if you choose to follow an externally derived moral code, you still have to first make an autonomous moral decision that doing so is the “right” thing to do.
I think altruism is an evolved instinct which serves to support the survival of social animals. Humans are a social animal. We are evolved to survive in groups, not as individuals. Group bonding faciitates this.
Would it be possible you to become convinced that you were mistaken in some point of your morality? Could I persuade you that something you thought was all right was actually wrong, or vice versa?
Actually, I suppose this could happen in two different ways: I could persuade you that something about your understanding of the facts or circumstances was amiss, so that, even though your fundamental moral principles hadn’t changed, you learned better how they applied to that particular circumstance. Or I could persuade you that your principles themselves were somehow lacking, that there’s some higher authority or reality to which they didn’t perfectly conform. Your view of things seems to rule out the second, at least—right?
Well, I can at least say that your definitions are consistent. I don’t really know if there’s any other conclusion to be made, but I’m unclear about what exactly your objection is to Shodan. Are you saying all moral decisions are based on intuition/emotion alone? Because he appears to be arguing that morality is based on some set of premises that you just take for granted (and you can do that based on emotion).
Looks to me that you may be arguing that reason doesn’t enter into moral questions at all, but I find that hard to believe.
ETA: Thudlow Boink seems to be prodding at the same issue here.
But, if it is an evolved instinct which serves to support an individual’s survival and the survival of that individual’s social unit… is it truly Altruism??
Has it not become merely one more act of self-preservation?
And therefore, not altruism at all?
As Diogenes pointed out upthread, even if such things exist they are unknowable, which renders them morally irrelevant. And as I’ve said elsewhere I don’t care if they exist or not; I’m not going to start torturing or enslaving people just because some supposed “higher authority or reality” says I should.
It is certainly possible in my case. Any true morality is fluid and ever-changing based on new information and reason. If it’s not, then it is no longer morality and has become mere dogma.
As a matter of fact, I welcome discourse and differing opinions. How can I grow as a person if all I hear are my own thoughts?
I don’t see how anything thought of as morality can be derived from a source other than Reason. One’s ability to reason is the bedrock of what becomes a person’s moral code.
I think many people want to use emotion rather than intellect when discussing morality and therefore the terms are never really clearly defined for anyone in the debate.
One must agree on a definition of what something IS before one can discuss it’s various merits and/or faults.
The second would not be possible for me, but the first one certainly is and has happened often in my life. Yes, I can have my perceptions (emotional responses) changed by new information or insights. I can also be persuaded that I am making irrational judgements based on false assumptions. My wife has been successful at changing my moral outlook many times.
