back to the beginning: morality

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

They are not descriptions of what we actually do but prescriptions about what should be done. These prescriptions can take a number of forms: on the one hand, logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies; on the other hand, moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions. Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology). We also have rules for making inferences: modus ponens and the Kantian principle of universalizability, say—as well as warnings against fallacious inference (don’t affirm the consequent, don’t try to infer an “ought” from an “is”).

Yes, I know: I may well be misunderstanding his point.

So, if you think you do understand it, please note how, given a moral conflict of particular interest to you," logical laws, rules of inference, and avoidance of logical fallacies…moral laws, rules of conduct, and avoidance of immoral actions" are applicable to you.
Same with this…

Thus we have the three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) and the utilitarian principle, or a list of basic duties (corresponding to consequentialism and deontology).

Given a particular set of circumstances, what do you construe to be your own moral obligations?

Neither subject is concerned to establish “matters of fact” about the natural world; both are concerned to improve reasoning, make us better people, keep us on the right track.

The natural world? Well, if human beings are a part of nature, how could anything that we say and do not be natural? Instead the more appropriate word might be normal. Only – click – this too is rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

It is good to reason validly and to do what is morally right. Thus logic and morality are procedural and prohibitive, rule-governed and critical. We apply them to facts in order to produce desirable results—true beliefs, right actions—but they are not a form of fact gathering analogous to physics or history. They are practical not theoretical. They are active and engaged not laid-back and detached.

Practical.

What else can I do here but to note how “being practical” can mean many different things to many different people. My own contention here is that democracy and the rule of law is far more suitable to pragmatism.

Then the part where, in regard to any number of moral objectivists, true beliefs and true actions revolve around sustaining [psychologically,emotionally] their soothing comfort and consolation all the way to the grave. And then for others, beyond the grave.

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

It is true that we have formal logic as taught in university logic courses, while morality can scarcely claim anything comparable (though there is deontic logic).

"Deontic logic is the field of philosophical logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts". wiki.

Let’s focus here on a particular moral conflagration of note. Gun control, say. So, using deontic philosophical logic, how would you go about pinning down what all rational – virtuous? – men and women are obligated to believe about buying and selling guns.

As for the “essential logical features of these concepts”, I’m even more intrigued with how they might be intertwined in the lives that we live.

But the logic and morality I am talking about are pre-formal—they are embedded in our natural competence at dealing with the world and are probably innately based.

Either that or some here [like Maia] are convinced that they are “somehow” in possession of an “Intrinsic Self” that ever and always obviates dasein. They just know “deep down inside” that how they think and feel about things like gun control reflects the most “natural” assessment. And since no one else is them, they can’t possibly grasp this frame of mind. In fact, any number of them might claim that their own Intrinsic Self has led them to conclude just the opposite about gun control.

Logical reasoning existed before Aristotle tried to codify it, and morality pre-dates attempts at explicit refined statement. These are primitive forms of human competence, not dissimilar to language competence before grammarians came along.

Grammar and morality?

We’ll need a context, of course. How about…gun control? Okay, grammarians, do your thing and note how deontic logic enables you to, what, provide us with the most rational and morally sound assessment of it?

The distinction between logic and morality is relatively recent and may not have been salient to early humans. We know quite well what is meant by the “ethics of belief”, and we are not shy about pointing out fallacies in other people’s moral reasoning. Sound reasoning is sound reasoning—and it is what we should be aiming at.

Actually, the preponderance of moral objectivists I have come into contact with insist basically that, logically, spiritually or otherwise, their own moral philosophy does in fact reflect the one and the only One True Path to enlightenment.

The distinction between logic and morality is not as sharp as we tend to think these days (I suspect it is less sharp in the ancient world than in the post-Christian word). Shoddy logical reasoning is deplored, as immoral action is. You should keep your promises and you should follow modus ponens; we can worry about fine points of logic versus morality later. If we suppose that animals possess rudimentary forms of logic and morality, are they really distinct modules in the animal mind? Logic and morality bleed into each other.

On the other hand, whatever, for all practical purposes, that means? You tell me. How? By illustrating your own text here existentially pertaining to gun control or any other instance of conflicting goods.

[iambiguous]

Logic and Morality
Colin McGinn

Where does prudential reasoning fit? It is surely only logical (rational) to consider one’s own future wellbeing—so we might assign prudence to logic. But prudence is also behaving well to one’s future self, so that it falls within morality.

Is it even possible to encompass human morality more…philosophically? Prudential reasoning aimed at sustaining one’s well being into the future? Okay, let’s see if we can pin this down by zeroing in on the most rational and logical future pertaining to behaviors revolving around a moral conflagration of note.

Some moralists have even supposed (I think rightly) that prudence is a special case of morality—we have moral duties towards ourselves, as one sentient being among others. So prudential reasoning is both logical and moral—it has a foot in both camps.

Theoretically, say?

For example, are Donald Trump’s executive orders taking us into a more or a less rational [virtuous] future? How would we go about determining this? How would we go about configuring our philosophical assumptions into actual political legislation?

Or should we say that the idea of a dualism of camps is mistaken? Isn’t the line more blurred than contemporary culture recognizes? We think there is no morality in logic textbooks and that moral issues can’t be resolved by formal logic: but that is surely too narrow a view of both fields. Logic is up to its ears in normative notions, and morality is a domain of logical reasoning.

For instance, consider the “normative notions” that have been accumulated philosophically over the centuries by these folks: List of philosophies - Wikipedia

The A’s alone account for nearly fifty schools of philosophy.

If you are trying to resolve a complex moral issue, such as abortion or animal rights, you will find yourself invoking principles drawn from logic and from normative ethics—as we currently understand those fields. But from a ground level perspective these distinctions are blurred and irrelevant: you are just reasoning with whatever bears upon the topic.

Okay, start here:

Abortion - Contemporary abortion procedures | Britannica

Vegetarianism | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Health, Nutrition, &...

Note the most principled/reasonable assessments.

You are applying your logical and moral competence to a real world problem with a view to doing what is right.

Uh, define competence?

When you avoid deriving an “ought” from an “is” are you doing logic or morality? When you declare that all sentient beings have rights is that intended as a moral principle or a logical one? It functions as an abstract axiom used to draw conclusions—it is irrelevant whether it crops up in a standard logic text (they don’t even include modal logic).

So much more to the point [mine] are the moral objectivists among us who refuse to make that distinction. Some go so far as to insist that morality encompasses nothing less than a metaphysical truth.

One that revolves “philosophically” around, say, capitalism? Or “scientifically” around socialism?

And what is particularly irrelevant for almost all objectivists is the fact that other objectivists insist it is their own One True Path that actually reflects the one and the only truly enlightened assessment of, well, everything, right?

We shouldn’t have too narrow a view of logic, and we shouldn’t neglect the abstract character of much moral reasoning. I am inclined to say simply that moral reasoning just is logical reasoning—logical reasoning about questions of value.

Now all we need is a context.

[iambiguous]

Colin McGinn
Logic and Morality

What about the point that logic is fixed, rigid and universal while morality is changeable, fluid and relative? Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Now all we need are a few actual accounts of how this distinction is made existentially. Morality is controversial because for thousands of years now philosophers and ethicists have failed to provide mere mortals in a No God world with anything approaching a deontological moral philosophy. The only thing truly controversial about it, in my view, is how the moral objectivists themselves refuse to acknowledge how that they are but one of hundreds of additional advocates all championing the one and the only true path to enlightenment. I’m the first to acknowledge that moral nihilism is no less a subjective assessment on my part. It seems reasonable to me here and now but then so did a half dozen additional “my way or the highway” dogmas I embraced and embodied in years past.

And while logic can be used to express accounts of human moral interactions, that’s hardly the same thing as insisting – and then demonstrating – that your own moral philosophy reflects the most logical account that mere mortals in a No God world are able to sustain socially, politically and economically.

Isn’t morality controversial and logic indisputable? But this is a naïve and tendentious way to think: logic has its controversies and morality is a lot more universal than many people suppose.

Okay, for those who basically agree with this, note how, given your own personal experiences involving conflicting goods, this was/is applicable to the behaviors you chose/choose. And noting that morality is universal is merely a way of pointing out that when men and women do come together to form communities, “rules of behavior” are a must. Prescriptions and proscriptions used to either reward or punish particular behaviors. Then the part where all of this is embedded in one or another intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law.

I won’t rehearse the usual criticisms of moral relativism, subjectivism, emotivism, etc.; suffice it to say that morality is really a subject in objectively good standing. Also, logic is not free of internal strife: some find modal logic suspect, others favor intuitionistic logic, still others adopt a highly inclusive conception of logic (even accepting logical contradictions). Not much in human thought is not controversial in some way.

Again, whichever assessment of logic you prefer, note how for all practical purposes it either works or does not work to sustain your own interactions with others.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Speaking of logic.

The way we do things may not be aligned with how things are if you start from the position that every self is an other to another self, or person equals person.

If you start from there, consent violation is a divergence from reality, or nature.