Moral Intuition

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
I wonder what breed or sort of dog you have. The traits of domestic dogs are relative to the breed and sort.
I have a Cockapoo and, yes, she was bred and socialized for human companionship. Breeding certainly does make a difference, but I should point out that traits cannot be bred into an animal, only made more or less prominent.


LuckyR:
A lot of the posts in this thread point to an observation of this or that behavior which is then labeled post hoc as "moral" or evidence of morality. Let's stipulate that the observations are accurate, this state of affairs is not actually proof of causality, that is that the behavior occurs because of a moral imperative. Another explanation which fits the data is selection bias, namely that behaviors happen randomly or at least not based on causality and the observer recalls the behaviors that they (as moral beings) recognize and are specifically looking for to promote their theory of universal morality or moral intuition as it were.
It would help if you identified posts that make claims of moral causality or evidence of morality or moral imperative.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote:
I have a Cockapoo and, yes, she was bred and socialized for human companionship. Breeding certainly does make a difference, but I should point out that traits cannot be bred into an animal, only made more or less prominent.
A mixed breed like cockapoo is specially designed to be a good companion animal and so will be comparatively easy to socialise into the ways of a peaceful human home My dog who is a lurcher has certain traits such as requiring not a lot of walking, and sleeping a lot, and being unaggressive which make her suited to my home. She is however a sight hound who is inherently an escaper and a thief, so she needs more socialising in these regards than a spaniel poodle mix, who I guess has a stronger conscience. I don't require her to chase and catch wild prey, but if I did she as a puppy would have been mentally made for the job, which a cockapoo isn't, they retrieve.

So I agree that breeding does make a difference in whatever animal we are talking about, and that despite differences in bred-in traits socialisation does make a difference . I say "socialisation" not 'morality' deliberately because I believe as do you that socialisation and breeding together are the basis of morality.

Domestic dogs are especially interesting in this regard as compared with wild animals; domestic dogs, even feral ones, reflect human acculturation which wild animals don't. Humans, like domestic dogs, are much more plastic in their socialisation styles than are wild animals whose socialisation styles are not as culturally varied as those of humans plus our domestic dogs.

-- Updated April 15th, 2017, 6:02 am to add the following --

LuckyR:
A lot of the posts in this thread point to an observation of this or that behavior which is then labeled post hoc as "moral" or evidence of morality. Let's stipulate that the observations are accurate, this state of affairs is not actually proof of causality, that is that the behavior occurs because of a moral imperative. Another explanation which fits the data is selection bias, namely that behaviors happen randomly or at least not based on causality and the observer recalls the behaviors that they (as moral beings) recognize and are specifically looking for to promote their theory of universal morality or moral intuition as it were.
LuckR, if you are referring to situation ethics, then I'd agree that the situation alters the animal's choice whatever the situation may be,and this holds for all animals wild or domestic.( We aren't wild animals in the sense of at the top of the evolutionary tree which is harmony with natural environment). I also agree that people rationalise their behaviours , which is a pity IMO. I don't believe any other animals rationalise their behaviours.

We normally are, like cockapoos and German shepherds, naturally conscientious, except for criminals and sociopaths.

-- Updated April 15th, 2017, 6:04 am to add the following --

BTW, Schopenhauer called his beloved dog Atman :)
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
So I agree that breeding does make a difference in whatever animal we are talking about, and that despite differences in bred-in traits socialisation does make a difference.
And as you pointed out, some are more easily socialized to humans than others.

In my initial post I was going to follow up inborn intuitions with learned intuitions. I am not claiming that the problem of morality is solved by appeal to inborn intuitions. Intuitive moral intelligence is another part. It is not a matter of learning moral rules but of being able to read the situation and act in an appropriate way. Some unstated version of the Golden Rule is at work.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:
So I agree that breeding does make a difference in whatever animal we are talking about, and that despite differences in bred-in traits socialisation does make a difference.
And as you pointed out, some are more easily socialized to humans than others.

In my initial post I was going to follow up inborn intuitions with learned intuitions. I am not claiming that the problem of morality is solved by appeal to inborn intuitions. Intuitive moral intelligence is another part. It is not a matter of learning moral rules but of being able to read the situation and act in an appropriate way. Some unstated version of the Golden Rule is at work.
I like that word 'inborn' as it's precise but not posh.

I agree that it's not only inborn intuitions but also learned intuitions. I presume that by intuitions you mean the same as I would, which is nothing mystical but is a fast way to come to a reasoned decision . I also believe that reason includes empathy without which reason would be deficient.

With regard to the Golden Rule I also believe in the theory of the Axial Age during which, as is clear from the Bible ,the fair and just Prophets were the moral ideas men whose ideas replaced the frequently violent heroics of the Biblical kings.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
I presume that by intuitions you mean the same as I would, which is nothing mystical but is a fast way to come to a reasoned decision.
Yes, it has nothing to do with anything mystical. It may be as simple as seeing that when I do this or that it makes others happy or unhappy, and so, I see that it is something I should or should not do.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

BTW I am going to have to think again about Jaspers's Theory of the Axial Age.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
BTW I am going to have to think again about Jaspers's Theory of the Axial Age.
How so? With regard to prophets and kings or in general?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Steve3007 »

In response to the OP:

I tend towards the view expressed by Greta in post #2 that all such things as moral intuition stem ultimately from the forces that shaped our species as we evolved and interacted with each other and the rest of the world. And given that we demonstrably have all kinds of physical and mental characteristics that were innate in us from birth it seems reasonable to assume that this includes some things that we would class as moral values.

We are a species whose success is very largely a result of our ability to create communities of individuals who benefit from cooperation. That survival through cooperation has clearly been very successful in spreading the human genome to every corner of the planet. Of course, the human genome, like other species' genomes, has also survived by preferentially feeling an instinctive need to protect others with a strength of feeling that is approximately proportional to their genetic distance from ourselves. Our empathy with others largely works like that. Empathy means being able to put oneself, emotionally, in another's place. It seems clear to me that the power of empathy to drive us to take moral actions is clear evidence of the selfish gene principle.

I think the implications for our basic understanding of morality are that in order to understand why people behave as they do the most successful approach is to look for these underlying genetic reasons.

The most common objection to this approach is, I think, best summarized by the expression: "you can't get an ought from an is". Perhaps that's a subject for another post.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

Fooloso4 wrote:Belindi:
BTW I am going to have to think again about Jaspers's Theory of the Axial Age.
How so? With regard to prophets and kings or in general?

In general, certainly, and with regret.

-- Updated April 17th, 2017, 11:23 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:In response to the OP:

I tend towards the view expressed by Greta in post #2 that all such things as moral intuition stem ultimately from the forces that shaped our species as we evolved and interacted with each other and the rest of the world. And given that we demonstrably have all kinds of physical and mental characteristics that were innate in us from birth it seems reasonable to assume that this includes some things that we would class as moral values.

We are a species whose success is very largely a result of our ability to create communities of individuals who benefit from cooperation. That survival through cooperation has clearly been very successful in spreading the human genome to every corner of the planet. Of course, the human genome, like other species' genomes, has also survived by preferentially feeling an instinctive need to protect others with a strength of feeling that is approximately proportional to their genetic distance from ourselves. Our empathy with others largely works like that. Empathy means being able to put oneself, emotionally, in another's place. It seems clear to me that the power of empathy to drive us to take moral actions is clear evidence of the selfish gene principle.

I think the implications for our basic understanding of morality are that in order to understand why people behave as they do the most successful approach is to look for these underlying genetic reasons.



The most common objection to this approach is, I think, best summarized by the expression: "you can't get an ought from an is". Perhaps that's a subject for another post.
"You can't get an ought from an is" is what I contest when I claim that what is inborn in a species is a legitimate moral authority . The problem with this comes when we understand how humans' behaviour and ideas is an artificial construction made by humans ourselves, who have this extraordinary ability to conserve cultures through many generations. Neuroscience is making advances that slightly narrow the parameters of human nature . Sartre's existentialism distinguishes between ideas that can be changed (i.e. freedom) and facticity.

"You can't get an ought from an is" is relevant to discussing moral intuitions which are part of the nature-nurture debate..
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Felix »

"You can't get an ought from an is"

Maybe not, but you can base the ought on the is, which is... oughtism?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Steve3007 »

Felix:
Maybe not, but you can base the ought on the is, which is... oughtism?
(Smiley face). As the best comedy often has a grain of deep truth, that is quite a good one. It does indeed seem that one of the problems that at least some autistic people have is inability to intuit how to relate to other people on an emotional level. So they have to rote learn rules of human behaviour that are instinctive to others. My autistic nephew does this. It is kind of, just about, like basing an "ought" on an "is". At least close enough to form the basis of a joke.

Anyway, what I meant when I said that was this: My proposed explanations (touched on in the previous post) for human moral behaviour are based on the idea that we are, essentially, biological machines. There are "forces" which cause us to behave in semi-predictable ways. This is what many people object to, and they often summarize their objection using that expression. The poster called Syamsu, in this place, is an extreme example of this. He talks about absolutely nothing else, has done so for many years and will no doubt show up on this thread in due course.

Belinda:
"You can't get an ought from an is" is what I contest when I claim that what is inborn in a species is a legitimate moral authority.
I agree that aspects of morality are inborn - are built into our DNA. But does that, in itself, tell us whether you can get an ought from an is? If anything, I guess being built into our DNA is more "is" than "ought" isn't it? It smacks of this legitimate moral authority being, essentially, a base 4 computer code.
The problem with this comes when we understand how humans' behaviour and ideas is an artificial construction made by humans ourselves, who have this extraordinary ability to conserve cultures through many generations. Neuroscience is making advances that slightly narrow the parameters of human nature.
So I think what you're talking about here is a kind of "ought of the gaps". The "ought" is getting squeezed into a smaller and smaller space as our understanding of the "is" part - the biological machine - increases?
Sartre's existentialism distinguishes between ideas that can be changed (i.e. freedom) and facticity.
Yes, I don't know much about Sartre's existentialism, but from the little I do know it does seem to be primarily about the importance of entirely non-deterministic freedom to choose as entirely distinct from the presentation of unchangeable facts.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Spectrum »

Steve3007 wrote:The most common objection to this approach is, I think, best summarized by the expression: "you can't get an ought from an is".
Just a short point.
My moral intuition is, I believe we should abstract an 'ought' from "is" and then express "is" as guided by that 'ought'.
That is the basis of the Moral-Ethics Framework and System I am proposing.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

Steve wrote:
I agree that aspects of morality are inborn - are built into our DNA. But does that, in itself, tell us whether you can get an ought from an is? If anything, I guess being built into our DNA is more "is" than "ought" isn't it? It smacks of this legitimate moral authority being, essentially, a base 4 computer code.
I intended it as candidate for legitimate moral authority. As I see the ethical aspect of our lives, we are bound by necessity, by nature. One of the components of necessity is that as individuals we strive to continue holding our lives together as best we can , as all animals and even vegetables do. In order to do this we must , according to the sort of natural animals we are, cooperate with others. " Others" isn't restricted to living human others but includes the natural environment , the human past, and culturally-acquired values and all ideas, for all of those are nature/necessity. However some necessities, some facts, are plastic and those necessities are what we can change
So I think what you're talking about here is a kind of "ought of the gaps". The "ought" is getting squeezed into a smaller and smaller space as our understanding of the "is" part - the biological machine - increases?
Yes there is a, false, "ought of the the gaps". :)
Yes, I don't know much about Sartre's existentialism, but from the little I do know it does seem to be primarily about the importance of entirely non-deterministic freedom to choose as entirely distinct from the presentation of unchangeable facts.
Like I cannot walk through walls , and I was born with a certain bony skeleton, but I can change my mind. I can learn and that is what is dynamically special about human freedom compared with animals who are more stuck with minds that cannot be changed . I know that other animals can learn and we understand this fact more the more we come to know other species. We humans can learn new ideas such as making ourselves over into liberals, atheists, fascists, religionists, medical doctors, politicians, etc. We have this sort of freedom, within the bounds of facticity. Facticity includes imprisonment, accidents such as loss of a limb, and powerful oppressive regimes such as religion and similar regimes based upon fear. Free men strive against such disabilities, and it's the striving existence that makes such men essentially free. I forget which philosopher said that "caring" is the word we want ;does anyone remember ?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi:
BTW I am going to have to think again about Jaspers's Theory of the Axial Age.
How so? With regard to prophets and kings or in general?
In general, certainly, and with regret.
Maybe you could start a topic.

-- Updated April 18th, 2017, 7:43 am to add the following --

Consul quoted this in another topic. I think it relevant to this discussion:
"Empathetic Imagination

Traditional moral theories have almost entirely ignored one of our most important moral capacities—the capacity for empathy. Hume's treatment of what he called 'sympathy' or 'fellow-feeling' touches on this issue, but it does not go to the heart of imaginative empathetic projection into the experience of other people. ' As a limiting case, it requires the ability to imagine ourselves in different situations and conditions at past and future times. Unless we can put ourselves in the place of another, unless we can enlarge our own perspective through an imaginative encounter with the experience of others, unless we can let our own values and ideals be called into question from various points of view, we cannot be morally sensitive.

This 'taking up the place of another' is an act of imaginative experience and dramatic rehearsal of the sort described by Nussbaum and Eldridge in their accounts of narrative moral explorations. It is perhaps the most important imaginative exploration we can perform. It is not sufficient merely to manipulate a cool, detached 'objective' reason toward the situation of others. We must, instead, go out toward people to inhabit their worlds, not just by rational calculations, but also in imagination, feeling, and expression.

Reflecting in this way involves an imaginative rationality through which we can participate empathetically in another's experience: their suffering, pain, humiliation, and frustrations, as well as their joy, fulfillment, plans, and hopes. Morally sensitive people are capable of living out, in and through such an experiential imagination, the reality of others with whom they are interacting, or whom their actions might affect."

(Johnson, Mark. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. pp. 199-200)

-- Updated April 18th, 2017, 10:21 am to add the following --

Greta:
I expect that moral intuition is surely evolved in us, passed on by those who survived in part due to their capacity to cooperate with and elicit cooperation from others.
I think that it is important to emphasize the role that pleasure plays in being and working together, in being a part of a community. It is not just the ability to cooperate but the desire, reward, and satisfaction of belonging, of caring, of nurturing that is a part of us.


Gertie:
So the question for us today, in light of this knowledge, is how do we come to a consensus on non-objective Oughts?
I'd say the answer lies in the fact that conscious creatures, humans and other species, have a quality of life, and there-in lies the basis for Value/Morality, or as I'd put it, Mattering. Because it matters how you treat an entity with the ability to suffer, be happy, etc. And that entails Oughts.
Googling “mattering ethics” brings up some interesting results.
I think this fits with most existing moral theories, it simply justifies them in a way consistent with current knowledge. A way which hopefully we can build an informed consensus around.
An ethics based on principles, rules, and the determination of obligations could be combined with an ethics of mattering, but it often seems that the search for abstract universals loses sight of living, breathing, individuals for whom things matter in circumstances that matter.

The root of the problem may be the presumed disjunction between reason or thinking and feeling.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Moral Intuition

Post by Belindi »

Consul wrote:
Traditional moral theories have almost entirely ignored one of our most important moral capacities—the capacity for empathy. Hume's treatment of what he called 'sympathy' or 'fellow-feeling' touches on this issue, but it does not go to the heart of imaginative empathetic projection into the experience of other people. ' As a limiting case, it requires the ability to imagine ourselves in different situations and conditions at past and future times. Unless we can put ourselves in the place of another, unless we can enlarge our own perspective through an imaginative encounter with the experience of others, unless we can let our own values and ideals be called into question from various points of view, we cannot be morally sensitive.
Are there degrees of empathy?

I agree with what you wrote, Consul. I'd like to add that one of the uses of stories is to rehearse our imaginations of what others feel. In this respect The Bible should be put away on the top shelf and seldom referred to because it is

1. tarnished by its use as a devotional repetition

2. many of its stories are morally out of date as they refer particularly to a lost age of magic, superstition, legitimate brutality, and largely defunct agricultural practices.

3. many Biblical stories are traditionally preached as history or even science when plainly they are neither.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021