Well, instead of asking the ether, you could read his Nicomachean Ethics where he goes into concrete and specific actions/virtues and is not in the theoretical clouds.
Those two phenomena are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps Plato is correct that in general people feel better when aligned with a moral system AND some people get upset when the objectivity of their moral system is called into question. The latter does not contradict the former.
1 Like
I think Biggy means â Where is the human who always acts virtuously?
Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
D E Tarkington
Unless, perhaps, you count all of the rewards and punishments embedded culturally in the legal system. In other words, while nothing grounds morality essentially, there are any number of ways in which citizens might be inclined to accept conflicting sets of moral and political prejudices. Through democracy and rule of law and through the âpeaceful exchange of powerâ.
Itâs just that legal sanctions are anchored to political systems that are in turn anchored to political economies that evolve [sometimes dramatically] over the course of actual human interactions historically. And then, of course, one or another rendition of the Golden Rule: those who have the gold, rule.
Or, of course, the good news. If you get my drift.
For example, for the sociopaths and the might makes right autocrats and the amoral âshow me the moneyâ global capitalists, itâs not so much that they feel free to live immoral lives, but that moral lives themselves are deemed merely to be the social, political and economic constructs: âopiates of the peopleâ.
And, ironically enough, in my view, this revolves by and large around objectivism. There are so many, many One True Paths out there from which to choose, no one is really all that far from one. If only because most of us as children are indoctrinated ourselves into embodying that path.
Let alone whether the emphasis should be placed on the ânatural rightâ of the unborn to life, or the âpolitical rightâ of women to control their own reproductive system.
Not to worry though, right? Yeah, sure, there are any number of men and women out there who do inflict draconian repercussions on those who refuse to become âone of usâ.
But not you though.
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=735591 time=1729224667 user_id=3619]
Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwinâs moral theory.
The Social Instincts
The social instincts, Darwin wrote, are âthe prime principle of manâs moral constitutionâ. The moral sense âis aboriginally derived from the social instincts, for both relate at first exclusively to the community.â
Darwin offered extensive evidence that we are social animals, and that we share our moral sense with our primate evolutionary predecessors.
Of course, as soon as you bring up something like this in regard to human interactions, you have to start drawing those godawful lines between genes and memes. Then the part where those like Marx and Engels started connecting the dots historically between I and we given the reality of political economy, given further the historical evolution of the means of production. Then the part where Freud and Jung introduced the complexities of human psychology. Then the part where Reich hammered home the suspicion that sexual repression as a political tool sustains the ruling class. Then the part where Nietzsche yanks God out from under it all. Then the part where Wittgenstein starts to probe the very limitations of language itself in pinning us down.
In other words, for all practical purposes, âsocial instinctsâ can come to be attached to any number of conflicting goods in any number of different ways all up and down the moral and political spectrum. In other words, social instincts meet historical and cultural prejudices.
Even instinct, the part of âIâ that dwells deep down in the reptilian brain, are never entirely attributable to just this but not that. The fact is that social interactions can be manifested in any number of at times very different ways.
On the other handâŚ
Associate in regard to what, however? There are social instincts among the capitalists and social instincts among the socialists. Social instincts during the Sunday service, and social instincts among the Hellâs Angels.
Some animals are considerably more social than others. Chimps for example actually prefer solitudeâŚbeing alone âby natureâ. And among people some [like me] prefer a solitary existence as well. For any number of reasons dirived from any combination of variables.
Thank you for resposting my post. Does this mean you thought more people should see it?
Chimpanzees are very social animals and spend a lot of time with others in their group. They live in communities, which are large groups that can have anywhere from 20 to over 100 chimps. These communities often split into smaller groups to look for food, then come back together. This allows chimps to be social but also flexible, depending on how much food there is and what is happening around them. They groom each other, play, and form alliances, especially among males who work together to establish their place in the group and protect their territory. Female chimps are often more independent, especially when caring for young, but they are still part of the communityâs social life.
You might have been thinking of Orangutans, which are very solitary.
As far as yourself. Try going for two weeks without posting online to your fellow social mammals. Only watch documentaries on things, not people during that time. IOW allows yourself to experience your solitariness and stop the online grooming rituals and interactions. Then let us know if you are a solitary being.
But in general, sure these are tendencies. And dasein, as you would put it, can eliminate the urge to associate. If we have bad experience, or if we are fractured and fragmented to the degree that we do not feel comfortable interacting with people, sure, we may choose to be alone. But as a species, with some exceptions, we like to be social with others. And some who are isolated, if you look carefully at their actions, they are communicating or planning to communicate to other humans: there is an underlying focus on, at some point or ongoing in your case, telling others about their ideas, problems, thoughts, reactions, and then hearing how other humans respond. Weâve got billions of humans and there is diversity. And given that we have the most neuroplastic brains, we have greater diversity than other social animals. But none of that undermines what you quoted.
.
Youâre Iwannaplato! 
I [still] wannaplato whatever youâre having⌠
1 Like
Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwinâs moral theory.
The Moral Sense
The moral sense, Darwin claimed, âfirst developed, in order that those animals which would profit by living in society, should be induced to live togetherâ. It is âfundamentally identical with the social instinctsâ.
Hereâs the thing though. Social instincts among our own species [and only among our own species] become intertwined in ever evolving and changing cultural and historical memes. Memes that over the centuries have created complex social, political and economic interactions. As for profiting by living in society, does or does that not mean many different things to many different people?
On the other hand, what, for all practical purposes, will that mean to each and every one of us given our own day to day interactions? Darwin seems to be suggesting that Kant was on the right track but was simply unable â unwilling? â to grasp the role that biological imperatives play in regard to human morality. Then those like Satyr and his ilk who place far, far more emphasis on genes. Thus, from their frame of mind, morality is largelyâŚnatural. On the other hand, if you are not sure what that means, they will tell you. Just donât make the mistake of challenging them.
The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.
Letâs all start holding our bated breaths.
Machine morality? On the other hand, if the hard determinists are right, what are we right now but natureâs very own most sophisticated of all machines. At least on this planet.
But, by all means, if you yourself ever come across an AI entity that convinced you it can âgenerate the answer to any particular moral dilemma we might be faced withâ, please bring it to my attention.
Oh, and donât forget to include a context.
In other words, for some here, straight back up into the philosophical clouds in order to first nail down a technical, theoretical assessment of morality. Still, to the chagrin of some here, that project can go on and on and on soaring higher and higher into the intellectual stratosphere.
Moral principles? Objective as opposed to universal? Deontological as opposed to confronting conflicting goods over and over again? And, in my view, once we are dealing with âthe active philosophical engagement of vast numbers of peopleâ the more dasein comes into play. And the more that reality is sustained the longer we go without ever resolving any of the actual moral and political conflagrations that continue to rend us.
I donât know about eternity, but for over 2,000 years now [in the West] philosophers and ethicists have not exactly been able to accomplish much in the way of providing mere mortals in a No God with an actual One True Path.
Just program a machine with a bunch of practical functions that may conflict, depending on the circumstance, and ALSO give them a prioritizing function that determines which of the conflicting functions to GO and which to QUIT (in that context). The prioritizing function â make it âTreat the other as selfâ. Others and selves are those who have a bunch of practical functions that may conflict, depending on the context. Some of them may have a self=other prioritizing function, or a version of it.
Trick is. They have to be able to quit the prioritizing function â otherwise, it canât tell the other functions to GO or QUIT.
Is it worth it?
God says GO.
I say GO instead of RUN, because ârunâ sounds like quit⌠as in ârun awayâ. Which can be the case⌠if in order to quit, you have to say go to a different function.
That is how you get around the glitch of a broken quit.
That is why we need (hunger, thirst⌠search⌠seek⌠for) a bigger yes.
Ask/query.
The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.
Got that? Okay, given a particular context involving conflicting goods that you yourself have experienced, note how this âfairly mysterious form of perception called âmoral intuitionââ was understood by you at the time. How did it prompt you to react/behave one way rather than another? From my frame of mind, âmoral intuitionâ is most often embodied in one or another rendition of the Intrinsic Self. Thatâs the part some are inclined to fall back on in order transcend dasein. The Real Me that just somehow knows these things. Either through God or any other One True Path.
How about yourself? Do you have it or not? I myself have defective color vision. But that would appear to be entirely rooted biologically, congenitally in genes. The irony here then being that there are no actual colors out in the world to see. Thereâs only the illusion of color created by the brain and the eyes in tandem.
Then the part where we either think we do have it or do not have it. But is this not just another illusion given that our brain compells us to think only that which we were never able not to think?
And, so far, here, nothing has yet to be resolved.
Not to worry though if thatâs not your thing. All you need do is just believe the opposite. After all, there are those who become convinced about these things simply because they do believe in them. If for no other reason then deep down inside, they already feel wholly in sync with one or another One True Path. Some from the moment they are able to be indoctrinated by others, and others as the existential embodiment of dasein from the cradle to the grave.
Again, the moral conclusions/convictions we arrive at as individualsâŚto what extent do these reflect actual biological imperatives from birth rather than blank slates to be stuffed with memes historically, culturally and in terms of our own unique personal experiences.
Your mind is a morality machine. Does anyone here bother to define what morality is? What this idea means in reality?
Morality is the recognition of the logically necessary responsibility that comes with knowledge of good and bad. This is a very simple and necessary understanding of the fact that when we know about good and bad we also immediately know that goods are good and bads are bad, not just for us but for other people too. Because of this, it is bad to cause bads and it is good to cause goods. This is simply a truism, baked right into what the concepts mean.
Morality is realizing that this responsibility is inherent, truistic, and cannot be ignored. To violate it simply means one has found other motives that compel him to violate morality because he thinks enough goods will come from some bads. LIke a murderer killing someone because they think good will result for them, or because it makes them feel good. Or because they enjoy causing bads to other people. There are all sort of reasons and ways morality is violated.
The Self is the âmachineâ that unlocks your understanding of morality by giving you access to the universe of facts via the metaphysically parallel and superimposed universe of ideas which occurs in and as the mind. Sure this is what the mind does, but the self is needed to frame this, give it meaning and perspective, and to truly make this knowledge motivating at an individuated level of being because without the self there is no individual to speak of. In-dividual mind-content is the magic at work here, extending and mapping into and overlapping and directly downloading from the universe of pure facts-as-such (one way of thinking about truth) into itself thus constructing a little microcosm of it that we call our mind.
Morality is the most basic concept imaginable. Good means good therefore it is good to do good; bad means bad therefore it is bad to do bad. This cannot get any simpler, a toddler can grasp this. But humans are so complex and subjected to such weird pressures and motivations that we just canât always figure it out. Then when we violate morality we usually lie to ourselves and make some excuse or pretend it didnât happen, which risks initiating a slippery slope of unchecked cognitive dissonance especially when the manipulative situation that warped our motivations is ongoing and there is constant and increasing pressure to both continue the moral falsifications with more abuses as well as introducing powerful self-preservation motives since once we cross a certain point we fear for being caught, and cover your ass becomes an imperative.
The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.
On the other hand, from my frame of mind, they are both interchangeable. Even given free will. Itâs not about the merits or lack thereof of eating licorice or the merits or lack thereof of the film you watched last night. Itâs the extent to which rational men and women either can or cannot arrive at the optimal assessment or either one.
The part rooted in the particular experiences we have had in regard to licorice. And itâs certainly not construed by many to be a moral issue. Though clearly âyour immediate and visceral feelings about the matterâ is always subject to change given new experiences. In other words, different people react differently to licorice. But itâs not like philosopher-kings can take that into account and come up with the most rational reaction to it.
On the other hand, what particular film is it? After all, in many respects, licorice is licorice is licorice. But films can vary considerably. And while this or that film may have scenes involving the consumption of licorice thatâs not likely to stand out as an important element in the plot. Instead, films can revolve around any number of far more controversial conflicting goods. And while technically some movies are considerably more sophisticated than others, when it comes to the plots, they can land all up and down the ideological spectrum.
Exactly! After all, when we watch any particular movie, we are going to react to it subjectively. Which means we take out of it first and foremost what we put into it: ourselves. And while there are clearly movies that come at or near the top of many film critics list, thereâs still no way in which to pin down which reviews reflect the most reasonable assessments.
Of course, my own contribution here revolves more around the assumption that arguments about films are no less rooted existentially in dasein.
Well, thereâs also nature. And thereâs more evidence that taste in food is genetically influenced than taste in films - which makes sense for a number of reasons, but certainly the complexity of films and how they relate to our lives and experiences in vastly more complex ways would leads to differences in that ratio (nature to nurture)
But that said his point is that the preference for or against licorice is less flexible than that around films, certainly in the short term. Imagine trying to convince someone that licorice actually did taste good. Not a chance. But as in his example, if you didnât get that a film was satire, this coming up in a discussion of a film might lead you to respect the film and on a second viewing âget itâ in a way that is not paralleled in the licorice situation. You may not agree with where he will take this argument, but there are differences related to how films are reacted to, given their complexity, that allow for much more change, even via discussion, than is possible even if an advocate is given a couple of days to argue for the fine tastes of licorice.
You just donât get it. LIcorice is a particular mixture of tangy and sweet and bitter.
Ugh. Still sucks.
Iâve had very large changes over quite short periods of time in relation to films. Hope and Glory I totally missed the tone of. When I spoke about the film to someone who loved it, I realized that I took the film in the wrong spirit. I watched it again and also loved it.
Butterscotch ice creamâŚtalk away, tell me anything about it, it will still make me gag. I suppose you could tell me it is an emetic and I might use it for that, but never, ever as a dessert.
The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.
This gets tricky however because there are aspects of film making that do involve learned skills such that some are clearly better at it than others. But even among these technical crafts, there are no doubt arguments regarding what is best for the film.
Similarly, a film screenplay might be well written or badly written. But is there anyone among us who can make this distinction every single time? Also, there are films like Birth of a Nation which many agree was technically well-made. At RT it garnered a 91% fresh score.
Richard Brody from The New Yorker
âProblematically, âBirth of a Nationâ wasnât just a seminal commercial spectacle but also a decisively original work of artâin effect, the founding work of cinematic realism, albeit a work that was developed to pass lies off as reality.â
AndâŚ
"The movieâs fabricated events shouldnât lead any viewer to deny the historical facts of slavery and Reconstruction. But they also shouldnât lead to a denial of the peculiar, disturbingly exalted beauty of âBirth of a Nation,â even in its depiction of immoral actions and its realization of blatant propaganda.
Instead, moral nihilists suggest that while moral objectivists might construe any particular film as depicting either moral or immoral actions, even here in a No God world that will always be derived from political prejudices largely rooted in dasein.
Unless, of course, someone here can pin this down for usâŚdeontologically?
ThusâŚ
On the other hand, who here is able to persuade us that their own â and only their own â assessment of the filmâs moral stance is the correct one?
Same with euthanasia and vegetarianism, right?
Next up: my own amorality contraption?
The Morality Machine
Phil Badger considers what it would take to make truly justifiable moral decisions.
The point is that the truth about the film is not arrived at by simple perception, nor is it reached by logical deduction (there is no mathematics of film criticism), but remains something other than merely a matter of taste. Liking a film is not like liking liquorice, and the reasons we might give for doing so are clearly more than simple rationalisations of our tastes.
This gets tricky however because there are aspects of film making that do involve learned skills such that some are clearly better at it than others. But even among these technical crafts, there are no doubt arguments regarding what is best for the film.
Similarly, a film screenplay might be well written or badly written. But is there anyone among us who can make this distinction every single time?
So, what is 100% accuracy necessary for? Knowledge? it being in a different category from liking of disliking the taste of licorice? What is the lack of 100% accuracy entail that contradicts, for exmaple, something in the article?
Also, there are films like Birth of a Nation which many agree was technically well-made. At RT it garnered a 91% fresh score.
Richard Brody from The New Yorker
âProblematically, âBirth of a Nationâ wasnât just a seminal commercial spectacle but also a decisively original work of artâin effect, the founding work of cinematic realism, albeit a work that was developed to pass lies off as reality.â
AndâŚ
"The movieâs fabricated events shouldnât lead any viewer to deny the historical facts of slavery and Reconstruction. But they also shouldnât lead to a denial of the peculiar, disturbingly exalted beauty of âBirth of a Nation,â even in its depiction of immoral actions and its realization of blatant propaganda.[/quote]
If a moral realist wrote this, it would likely mean that while that film is technically well done, it is morally reprehensible. Iâm not sure what this means in the context of a moral nhilist bringing this up. What is it rebutting in the article? What was the point of mentioning this?
Instead, moral nihilists suggest that while moral objectivists might construe any particular film as depicting either moral or immoral actions, even here in a No God world that will always be derived from political prejudices largely rooted in dasein.
This would be true of any film. So, why was your example Birth of a Nation? Why did a moral nihilist choose that exmaple?
A pertinent question is how similar are our moral views to our opinions about films? Clearly in both the film and morality cases, reasoning is important, and as in the film case, I might be able to persuade you to change your mind on some important moral issues. I might, for example, point out an inconsistency in your views about suffering that lead you to reevaluate your views on euthanasia or vegetarianism.
On the other hand, who here is able to persuade us that their own â and only their own â assessment of the filmâs moral stance is the correct one?[/quote]But, then again, itâs different from the licorice type issue, where discussion would probably never work to change someoneâs mind.
Do you disagree with the distinction between the taste of food and taste in films that the writer is making?
Yes, our tastes in foods can change over time, but rarely via discussion. it would be impossible for someone to reframe my experience of butterscotch ice cream and I realize, upon tasting it again, that I actually like it.
Even in a single day, can I reappraise a film (or novel, piece of music) or someone else can I have a very different experience of it. No amount of badgering me is going to change how I feel about butterscotch ice cream. No reading of food criticism is going to either.
As alwaysâŚ