I think you may have missed the point of this thread. Reason alone has not been demonstrated as being fundamental to morality. One can - possibly - argue from simple moral premises (or preferences) to conclusions in more complicated cases - I think that that is probably the case. But no one here has shown any way to derive moral principles from reason alone. If you can, please do so. So far, we’ve seen anthropological, aesthetic, emotional and “relativistic” principles (and a few others), but nothing based on reason alone.
It’s an emotional prioritization of the group over one’s self. We know that people who fight together for mutual survival will bond and that the lines between self and group become blurred Guys who have been in combat together frequently say this this is a bond like no other – a bond at least as emotionally compelling as with a spouse and children and maybe even stronger. I think this bond is real, is caused by specific conditions of brain chemistry (highly excited states of fear and adrenaline combined with literal life and death mutual dependency) and that it leads to a suffusion of the individual ego into the group. The guy who instinctively jumps on a grenade to protect the others in his company is not thinking about self-preservation but is acting on a very strong emotional and I believe neurologically evolved) impulse to protect the group first.
We have similar impulses when it comes to those very close to us – our children in particular. A lot of animals will be self-sacrificing or “altrusitic” in protecting their young. It is, again, an evolved emotional impulse. Biologically hardwired or not, it is a genuine prioritization of others over self, so I think that meets any reasonable definition of “altruism.”
Hmm… That’s a good bit you gave me to chew on!
Let me get back to it…
But for starters… I didn’t say that morality was based on reason alone… I said it was the bedrock on which morality is based… with the implication that there were other components involved.
This is a seriously good point you’re making so I will need to think about it a bit… this being new information, and all.
You sound like my Physiological Psychology professor!
And I like your explanation.
Thank-you!
Yet another item for me to think on.
I’m glad I found this place.
Good luck. I actually started this thread because I was quite disturbed by the implications. - I feel slightly better now - I’m certainly not nearly done with this problem, though, so any input is welcome.
Shodan’s idea that all moral systems are, to use a more neutral term than “faith”, ungrounded in any objective logical source is almost true, but an oversimplification.
You can’t objectively justify values - they just are. If I say my self interest is a suitable source for my morals, you can disagree, but you can’t prove (or even find evidence) that I am wrong.
However, there is such as thing as dissonance - a moral system may be not internally consistent, or may be insufficient for determining the right course of action in a particular situation. Hence, whilst there is no objective grounds for saying that a moral system is right, there are plenty of reasons why a moral system can be wrong.
As a thought experiment, try applying “do unto others” AND trust and faith in God AND the “divinely inspired” rule-set of judeo-Christian faiths without your head exploding.
It’s inductive reasoning, as I mentioned. All the moral statements made so far are founded in faith-based sets of axioms. Therefore, we conclude that all other morality is based on the same kinds of axioms.
Certainly the notion can be disproved by demonstrating the objective nature of some morality. One counter-example would be enough.
If you prefer, feel free to think of this as a theory, in the sense that evolution is a theory.
That all systems of morality are necessarily faith-based doesn’t mean they are necessarily using faith to the same extent, or at the same stages of an argument. Of course given the infinite nature of potential faith possibilities, that doesn’t matter unless faith is already given some credence if personal moralities are accepted.
Morality itself is a human term,and what could be considered moral to some could be immoral to others,as an example: Polygamy, wars etc. much is a matter of belief!
