Gertie wrote:IMO the advances in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology (still at a very early stage) require us to re-think our approach to Morality. Accept that it's a man-made concept rooted in our evolved predispositions, with no independent existence, which reason or religion can lead us to. Morality as we've historically constructed it, is a useful lie, which has now been found out.
A few questions and quibbles. I'm not sure how advances in neuroscience or evolutionary psychology, whether those in hand or those to come, bear on our approach to morality, which, as you suggest below, develops via a "rough and ready consensus process." I.e., through social experience. Perhaps you can give an example of some breakthrough in neuroscience which might prompt us to reconsider our views (whatever they may be ) on, say, affirmative action or capital punishment.
I'd also quibble with your claim that morality, while a man-made concept to be sure, is "rooted in our evolved predispositions." Of course, if you mean what I call "vernacular morality," i.e., the moralities actually embraced, at least verbally, and inconsistently followed by the majority of people, your claim there is not too far off the mark. But when I think of moralities I have in mind the moral systems proffered by philosophers over the centuries, most of which at least make the effort to construct systems that are coherent, consistent, and grounded in observable features of the human situation. E.g., Aristotle's ethics, the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, Kant's ethics, and even Sam Harris's (to whom you refer below). Generally speaking, our "evolved predispositions" are what these moral systems are designed to overcome (as you righly suggest below).
It is true that moralities are constructs of the human mind, and have no existence independent of those minds, but neither does any other theory. Quantum theory has no existence independent of human minds either. Of course, the subject matter of that latter theory, the physical universe, would continue to exist in the absence of human minds (we presume). But if human minds ceased to exist then not only moral theories, but their subject matter --- human societies --- would also cease to exist. Double whammy!
But moral theories are no more or less "real" or useful than theories in any other field of inquiry, and can be just as sound --- if, that is, we construct those theories using the same schema and methodology we use to construct scientific theories, and hold them to the same standards.
And surely morality or moral theories
per se are not "lies," misguided though some of them they may be. I suppose you could fairly call moralities that purport to be "handed down from God," or are true
a priori, "lies," but most of them, at worst, are just mistaken in some way.
To be sure, the concept of morality as widely understood (even by philosophers) covers way too much ground. Perhaps the biggest source of confusion and incoherence is the conflation of axiology (the theory of value, or "the good") with deontology, or the theory of the "right." Those are two distinct fields of inquiry, which need to be separated before sound theories can be constructed for either. Then deontology itself must be unpacked, separating rules for personal success or "living the good life" from rules governing interpersonal relations in a moral field (i.e., a social setting), that is, distinguishing "private moralities" from "public moralities."
An optimum public morality, as I see it, is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents (who are presumed to have equal status) in a moral field which maximizes the good, as each agent defines it, for all agents. Any such theory will be empirically testable (as any sound theory must be) by observing the results of applying the theory's rules.
Harris puts it this way - the foundation for morality is 'the well-being of conscious creatures'.
I agree with Harris in that particular. His mistake, however, is failing to appreciate how diverse and variable the requirements for well-being are for different agents. There are no "objective," universal, goods.
And imo there are reasons why we can never come to a perfect rule set for this, once we accept that Oughts are tied to the subjective nature of qualiative experiential states. My assessment for what would optimise my quality of life would probably have a lot in common with yours, but also differences which we'd disagree about. And some things which would optimise my quality of life, would have deleterious effects on yours (if I took all your money for example, or chose not to pay my taxes).
Yes indeed.
But obviously it doesn't work perfectly. There is still a lot of unnecessary suffering, even wars. [em]The problem is, our evolved social neurological mechanisms are designed for small tribal groups, to 'trigger' in up close and personal situations, rather than the vast inter-dependent societies of strangers we now live in. [/em] Which means we need a touchstone foundational principle like 'the well-being of conscious creatures' for guidance, to overcome some of our evolved pre-dispositions which simply don't work, or work against us, in the modern world. We need to expand that guiding principle beyond our tribal proclivities.
I posted a portion of an essay of mine on that topic on this forum a while back. Sounds like you read it!
-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 10:41 pm to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:The same can be said about an elephant or gazelle on its way to a water source...
Yes. The goals humans set for themselves, however, are rather more varied, abstract, and less strongly driven by biological imperatives.
I do this time and again in forgetting that we all think differently, projecting my own thought onto others as obvious. The question "Where we are going as species?" wasn't intended for exploration of human evolutionary path, although it's interesting that you interpreted it that way. Humans are the first and only sentient species on this planet that, unlike bacteria in exponential growth or mindless fungus, actually posses intellect to decide which path to take in human development... or not.
Well, we may have the intellect to make such decisions, but, unfortunately, probably not the intellect to do it well, or the wisdom to refrain from it. Humans' efforts to plan large scale social structures (e.g., urban planning, economic planning, "social engineering," etc.), are invariably short-sighted, counterproductive, and sometimes disastrous. I shiver at the thought of the course of human development being forced to follow some witless plan devised by pretentious, megalomanic Utopians and bureaucrats.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. What are some of these paths you would have human development take? And how would you steer development onto these paths?
Since society is made up of individuals and most of the people I asked are in pursuit of the things I mentioned, I presumed such to be the general social goals.
No. They are only the goals of those individuals, not "social goals" in the sense of "society's goals."
What is that mean? Organic means carbon based organism...in unity.
"Organic" also means, "like an organism," which is a system composed of discreet component parts, all of which must function properly in order for the system to function:
"1: a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
' . . .the nation is not merely the sum of individual citizens at any given time, but it is a living organism, a mystical body … of which the individual is an ephemeral part — Joseph Rossi'"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organism
I left that example in there because it exemplifies the "organic fallacy" that societies are organisms. But Mr Rossi redeems himself by admitting it is a "mystical body."
What I advertise is to suspend all of the political and ideological baggage aside for time being and examine the reality of "strangers" living in a given geographical area. What kind of relationship do they have, if any? How do they get food, water, electricity etc. Do they have to cooperate in any way or can each of them generate these things alone?
Those are empirical questions than can be answered by observing. They have many types of relationships, different types with different people, and with most, no relationship of any kind, other than the geographical one. And of course they cooperate --- each cooperates with those others whom he believes can augment his own efforts in pursuit of some interest he shares with those persons.