Holding their feet to the fire ...

[tabibito]

May I add to that? Some people never really grow up, and sociopaths are real.

By all means ... add away.

[phank]

Two year olds don't demonstrate any pre-programming in this regard. They have to be trained out of selfishness. Either that, or excuses are made for the behaviour, and it continues until someone does undertake training of the said two year olds at a later date. The longer it waits, the harder it gets to do the job.

This may be an "opportunity window" thing, like a Piaget phase of maturity. Human morality isn't cross-cultural (and cross-millennia) because everyone got together and compared notes.

[Leonhard]

What particular kind of Naturalism would that be?

There is an Is/Ought problem in many types of Naturalisms, for example in all reductive Naturalisms its true that you can't develop moral imperatives. However what you end up implying when you treat the Is/Ought problem as a dogma, is something a bit akin to "A specific form of Naturalism is true" Since this isn't granted by most people, and not even most scientists, or quite a few philosophers for that matter, it would be begging the question to use the Is/Ought problem in an argument.

It would seem to me that the Is/Ought problem calls for the rejection of Naturalism.

The Is/Ought problem calls for the rejection of 'final causality' something which most Naturalisms reject. If Reductive Naturalism is true then of course that problem exists, because you can't derive 'Killing an innocent person for its own sake is wrong' from 'The atoms are moving around in such and such way'. The same isn't true in non-reductive naturalisms as championed by Thomas Nagel. To say nothing of classical philosophy as it exists in the Christian tradition.

Also, you don't explain why the Is/Ought problem is not an actual problem.

The summary above is all I'll say until you decide to argue against me in the Basketball Court subforum. If you prefer arguing against Jorge, go ahead.

The Is/Ought problem is what allows us to say that the facts evolution studies are not relevant to moral decisions.

That's putting it way too strongly. Using the Is/Ought problem is one way you can argue that evolutionary biology is irrelevant to moral philosophies. However I think its a pretty shake reason, and there are better and stronger ways to argue that point. For example its sufficient to point out that the relevant facts to decide whether eugenics programs are good or not come from other areas. Even if evolutionary biology highlights a particularly inefficient and costly way of improving society, the types of practices that have to be put into place, would go against all commonly accepted morality.

[Truthseeker]

Two year olds don't demonstrate any pre-programming in this regard. They have to be trained out of selfishness. Either that, or excuses are made for the behaviour, and it continues until someone does undertake training of the said two year olds at a later date. The longer it waits, the harder it gets to do the job.

May I add to that? Some people never really grow up, and sociopaths are real.

[tabibito]

Our minds are not born tabula rasa. Human morality, considered generally, is as inborn as the propensity for language and abstract thinking, the ability to distinguish the future from the present, etc.

Two year olds don't demonstrate any pre-programming in this regard. They have to be trained out of selfishness. Either that, or excuses are made for the behaviour, and it continues until someone does undertake training of the said two year olds at a later date. The longer it waits, the harder it gets to do the job.

[phank]

As to the Is/Ought problem, it is independent of this biological ability for empathy and reason. For example, you couldn't justify Apartheid by pointing to the fact that Apartheid had been around for quite some time. Rather, we pictured a solution where there was less human suffering and more fairness, and we said that the moral decision was that Apartheid ought to go away. We don't derive how the world ought to be from how the world is.

Our minds are not born tabula rasa. Human morality, considered generally, is as inborn as the propensity for language and abstract thinking, the ability to distinguish the future from the present, etc.

Once again, our morality evolved from our evolutionary history in small tribes, probably no more than 200 people and usually far fewer, over hundreds of thousands of years. Apartheid is entirely compatible with small-tribe morality, since these tribes often competed and even in historical times (and today!), xenophobia is strong and genocide is a tempting "final solution". Putting yourself in the other person's shoes only applies to those who qualify as people, which historically did NOT include members of competing tribes (except, apparently, for formal or informal mate-swapping, generally through slaves taken in conquests of other tribes).

And this is where our evolved morality fails us today. We struggle to abstract the small-group orientation so as to consider ALL humans to be part of our particular tribe. This is hard when you do not know and will never meet more than a tiny fraction of members of your group, which in turn means you are generally acting in a wide enough world so that the side-effects of moral or immoral behavior will not redound to affect you in any visible way. Competing individual self-interests could be accommodated within a tight group where everyone knows everyone. It's much harder to internalize when nobody knows anybody, and the rules are administered not so much by mutual oversight as by distant codified laws and formal systems.

Anyway, we derive how the world ought to be from how our psychology as a species is. And that psychology, "human nature", is something quite real.

[Method]

I think I disagree with this. Our justifications are embedded deeply in our evolutionary history. All cultures do not follow the Golden Rule because they all got together and signed a treaty. They do so because those unable to internalize this rule were selected out of the gene pool. This isn't to say that what is natural is morally good, only that what humans regard as morally good, as right and wrong, is biological. We're born with it.

What causes us pain or distress is rooted in biology, but it is rather mundane. Obviously, cutting someone's arm off without their consent causes them pain and distress. The biological side seems rather straightforward. What was selected for was the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes and recognize that pain and distress, as well as the cognitive skills to understand which of your actions will cause pain in others.

As to the Is/Ought problem, it is independent of this biological ability for empathy and reason. For example, you couldn't justify Apartheid by pointing to the fact that Apartheid had been around for quite some time. Rather, we pictured a solution where there was less human suffering and more fairness, and we said that the moral decision was that Apartheid ought to go away. We don't derive how the world ought to be from how the world is.

[phank]

Above all else, we rely on justifications that are independent of our evolutionary history.

I think I disagree with this. Our justifications are embedded deeply in our evolutionary history. All cultures do not follow the Golden Rule because they all got together and signed a treaty. They do so because those unable to internalize this rule were selected out of the gene pool. This isn't to say that what is natural is morally good, only that what humans regard as morally good, as right and wrong, is biological. We're born with it.

[Roy]

What you want is for me to waste my time doing work that YOU should be doing.

No, I want you to provide evidence for the claim that you made. Apparently you can't.

Roy

[Method]

What you want is for me to waste my time doing work that YOU should be doing.

It is your job to support your claims. Don't waste our time with arguments that you have no intention of supporting.

[Method]

I suppose using these terms, evolution selected human empathy. Other species often express concern about other individuals in that species, but the concern may take different forms. So what I'm trying to say is that human morality doesn't seem to be as purely rational and intellectual as you seem to imply. The Golden Rule is found at the basis for the rule systems of every known human culture not because they all reason the same way or make the same choices, but because those who internalized the Golden Rule and lived by it, survived as small tribes. I'm suggesting it's hard-wired into the human brain by now in the same way human hair patterns are wired into our biology.

The Golden Rule is a great example of morality by way of reason and empathy. You will notice that the Golden Rule does not say that what is natural is morally good.

I think we will also both agree that we are subject to certain instinctual phobias or biases. You will also notice that our moral codes often fight against those instincutal phobias. Saying that we evolved to be a tribal, war-like species is not a valid moral justification for starting wars. Above all else, we rely on justifications that are independent of our evolutionary history.

It's no wonder that human gods have mostly been like ordinary people except with extra abilities and control over weather and such. But even today, we attempt to influence our gods emotionally with sacrifices, threats (of disbelief), and bribes. And that's also cross-cultural. Our gods are designed to embody the morality and human nature that evolved with our species.

Gods are certainly the reflection of man, both our ideals and our flaws. The perfect hero is the flawed hero.

[Jorge]

But you still can't provide one example.

Roy

What you want is for me to waste my time doing work that YOU should be doing.
And it would indeed be a WASTE of my time 'coz only God Almighty Himself could
ever get you to admit your error / change your stance -- certainly no "example"
that I could post here would achieve that goal.

What planet was that again - you know, the one you've been on for the past 40 years or so?

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

Good point. I'm a little out of it today.

@ Leonhard, I've actually finished a response(can't believe I got the whole thing done today), but I'm waiting on a response from some of the other mods about where it should go. I don't want to debate at this point, but I felt you deserved a response, and a chance to respond. It's too big for one post, so expect a rather long read compared to normal TWeb threads.

ETA: Oops, that was supposed to include Jorge's response to me earlier.

Yes, it's a good point that truth is grating on those who are dishonest. I did a bit more "work"(I don't consider responding to people here to be real work, but what I did today was a doozy for me) than I've done in a long time.

[phank]

Empathy and reason are not derived from descriptions of nature. What evolution provided was the ability to use reason and empathy as much as evolution provided us the ability to do math or physics.

What we have is the ability to detect pain in others, and the reasoning ability to infer what caused that pain. From that, we choose which actions to take to minimize the pain in others and to benefit the society we belong to.

I suppose using these terms, evolution selected human empathy. Other species often express concern about other individuals in that species, but the concern may take different forms. So what I'm trying to say is that human morality doesn't seem to be as purely rational and intellectual as you seem to imply. The Golden Rule is found at the basis for the rule systems of every known human culture not because they all reason the same way or make the same choices, but because those who internalized the Golden Rule and lived by it, survived as small tribes. I'm suggesting it's hard-wired into the human brain by now in the same way human hair patterns are wired into our biology.

It's no wonder that human gods have mostly been like ordinary people except with extra abilities and control over weather and such. But even today, we attempt to influence our gods emotionally with sacrifices, threats (of disbelief), and bribes. And that's also cross-cultural. Our gods are designed to embody the morality and human nature that evolved with our species.

[Roy]

So those are not natural? I was told that we do not get our morality from nature.

No you weren't.

Roy