Morality is based on desire.

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1021
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Count Lucanor » November 22nd, 2020, 12:04 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 7:06 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 10:08 am
As per explained before, no individual can simply switch off their rationality,
That has nothing at all to do with whether a foundational or root moral stance qua a moral stance can be based on rationality in any manner.
If one cannot switch off rationality, it is because it is essential, a necessary condition of belonging to the human species. Everything that is essential, unavoidable, a necessary condition, is foundational. Rationality is foundational for everything a human can do, that includes taking a moral stance.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 991
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 22nd, 2020, 12:14 am

Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
Marvin wrote:The natural objection to this is that the life of the fleas on our dog are not morally good for us or our dog.
That is not my objection. Rather it's the reason you came up with the notion that Life is not only objectively good, it can simultaneously not be objectively good, depending on the pov of the species - we haven't even got to the problems with that yet).
Uh, just to be clear, Life is objectively Good from the specific pov of each species. The evidence, for those species that are able to put up a fight or escape by flight, is that those species when threatened with imminent harm will either resist or flee. Try giving a cat a bath.

Each individual of each species demonstrates that its own life is good by a fight or flight response when threatened. The carrot, unfortunately, is stuck in the ground, so it is just as well that it has no conscious experience.
Marvin wrote:I think that everything begins with the axiom that Life is Morally Good. Which implies that surviving, thriving, and reproducing are morally good, because that is how all organic life operates.
Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
If the Moral Goodness of Life was self-evident, you could show why and only a few people might disagree who were for idiosyncratic reasons unable to grasp this. ...


I just did. Every animal has a "fight or flight" response to an eminent threat. The Moral Goodness of Life is hard-coded into their instincts.
Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
You presumably think this is what's happening here, you've run into a bunch of people who can't see what's staring them in the face. But most people arguing with you do grasp what you're saying, but believe you are using axiomatic incorrectly. Just because it looks self-evident to you, does not make it self-evident to others, if you are mistaken.
Well, I am working with an unfair advantage.
Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
I have made the comparison with the chemical processes with crystals to prompt you to explain why biological processes are axiomatically morally good, but chemical processes aren't. You haven't been able to.
But I did. I pointed out to you several times that crystals and toasters and other non-living things have no interest in outcomes. But all living organisms, because they are BUILT to survive, thrive, and reproduce, are affected positively by events that expedite those functions and are affected negatively by events that injure those abilities. They are subject to benefits (good). They are subject to harms (evil). And benefits and harms are moral notions.

Even the carrot, which has no subjective experience of anything at all, experiences benefits and harms. They can be helped. They can be hurt. And we can objectively observe things which benefit them (water and sunshine) and we can objectively observe things which harm them (drought and rabbits).
Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
I have made the point that Interests are the key element which makes the difference between a morally neutral state of affairs or action, and a morally relevant one. And that interests come into being with the qualiative nature of conscious experience. You have incorrectly dismissed this as an appeal to subjective desires, rather than my actual position - qualiative experience is the very grounding of meaning, value, mattering and therefore morality.
That's your opinion. I disagree.

1. Objective benefits and harms exist independent of conscious experience.
2. If it IS a net good for you to do something that harms no one else then you OUGHT to do it.
3. If it IS bad for you or if it unnecessarily harms someone else then you OUGHT NOT do it.

1 Subjective benefits and harms exist only within someone's conscious experience.
2. If it IS a net good for you to do something that harms no one else then you OUGHT to do it.
3. If it IS bad for you or if it unnecessarily harms someone else then you OUGHT NOT do it.

I don't know what a "qualitative experience" would be. We can experience objective events, like seeing someone stepping on our toes. We can experience subjective events, like the pain of someone stepping on our toes. Using hypnosis, we can suppress the subjective experience of the event, but we cannot suppress the objective occurrence of the event. The event happens whether we experience it or not.

The carrot, as far as we know, has no subjective experience. But we can observe the carrot sitting on the table, absent water, slowly shrivel as it dries up. And we can objectively observe this as an event that is harming the carrot, because the carrot is shriveling rather than thriving.

The event is not good for the carrot. So, what ought we to do? Well, that depends on what we want, not what the carrot wants. Morality, after all, is species specific.
Gertie wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 6:23 pm
This is why I can say that you chopping up a carrot has no moral connotations, but you chopping up a cat does. But you have to rely on your own subjective feelings about cats and carrots find moral connotations.
We know what is objectively good for the carrot. Leaving it growing in the garden is good for the carrot. Uprooting it and having it in my salad is good for me but bad for the carrot.

We know what is objectively good for the cat. Feeding it, cleaning its litter box, and giving it affection are all objectively good for the cat. The cat, we presume, also has subjective feelings about the food, the cleanliness of the litter, and the affection.

We love the cat, probably because it seems a lot like us. It is like having the company of a child or a friend. We are unlikely to have such feelings about the carrot (unless we're entering it in a 4H contest).

But, prior to the year 2010, eating cat meat was a staple in some southern China provinces. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 cats were consumed daily. (see Wikipedia article on "Cat meat" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_meat. The moral connotations of cats and carrots were similar at that time and place.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4394
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by LuckyR » November 22nd, 2020, 3:08 am

Not so much. The carrot's interest is not for itself as an individual. Rather it is to spread it's genetic material to the maximum number of progeny. Thus why tasting good in your salad compels you to collect it's seeds, plant, water, fertilize and weed around them, is in the carrot's best interest.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3017
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Sculptor1 » November 22nd, 2020, 6:39 am

LuckyR wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 3:08 am
Not so much. The carrot's interest is not for itself as an individual. Rather it is to spread it's genetic material to the maximum number of progeny. Thus why tasting good in your salad compels you to collect it's seeds, plant, water, fertilize and weed around them, is in the carrot's best interest.
This is as crazy as it sounds.
Carrots are not "interested" they do not have the mental capacity to do that. All this evolutionary thinking is wholly anthropomorphic. Teleologically fallacious. Humans are not "compelled", dupes of the carrot's cunning plan. Humans are the ones making the choices, and the efforts.
Predomestic carrots are more resistant to disease and predation. When the humans become extinct most of the domesticated species will follow.
Carrots are simply carrots. There is no doubt that humans have selected them for their taste and colour, and have collected and bred them to encourage these traits. All the "interest" is in the human's domestic selection. Pretty eyed, calves and smiley faced sheep; waggy tailed dogs and passive cats are all examples of this. Llama that follow humans too. In the Andes they always eat the Llama that tends to wander from the herd. The consequences of this is more compliant and friendly Llamas.
None of these species have any interest, their interests lie in eating the fodder and having shelter, **** and, when they give birth, care for their young. There is no bigger picture for them.

Wossname
Posts: 416
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Wossname » November 22nd, 2020, 6:52 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 12:14 am
Marvin_Edwards » Today, 4:14 am

1. Objective benefits and harms exist independent of conscious experience.
2. If it IS a net good for you to do something that harms no one else then you OUGHT to do it.

Marvin that is hopeless.
It may be objectively good for me to go jogging every day, but I am not morally obliged to. I am coming suspect you are some sort of puritan maniac.

[
LuckyR wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 3:08 am
y Marvin_Edwards » Today, 4:14 am

So, what ought we to do? Well, that depends on what we want,

We are unlikely to have such feelings about the carrot

You would do well to consider this a bit more carefully.

People may not have feelings of concern about carrots. People may not have feelings of concern about many people. Simply telling them they should because you say so seems a pointless endeavour though one you seem determined to continue with. You persistently refuse to properly engage with the argument and simply keep repeating your views as if you think we don’t understand them. You are tenacious at least, if not persuasive. There are better ways forward, but it seems you don’t wish to explore these. Good luck with it then.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 991
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 22nd, 2020, 8:27 am

Wossname wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 6:52 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 12:14 am
Marvin_Edwards » Today, 4:14 am

1. Objective benefits and harms exist independent of conscious experience.
2. If it IS a net good for you to do something that harms no one else then you OUGHT to do it.
Marvin that is hopeless. It may be objectively good for me to go jogging every day, but I am not morally obliged to. I am coming suspect you are some sort of puritan maniac.
I'm not telling you what you what you ought to do. I'm explaining how an "ought" is derived from an "is". If you personally feel that you ought to go jogging every day, then that is coming from you, not me. Now, your doctor may well have told you that you ought to get some kind of exercise each day. Why? Because it is objectively good for people to get some daily exercise. But that's between you and your doctor. And in the end it is a judgement call that you make for yourself, whether to do what you personally feel that you ought to, or not.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 991
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 22nd, 2020, 8:47 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 6:39 am
LuckyR wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 3:08 am
Not so much. The carrot's interest is not for itself as an individual. Rather it is to spread it's genetic material to the maximum number of progeny. Thus why tasting good in your salad compels you to collect it's seeds, plant, water, fertilize and weed around them, is in the carrot's best interest.
This is as crazy as it sounds.
Carrots are not "interested" they do not have the mental capacity to do that. All this evolutionary thinking is wholly anthropomorphic. Teleologically fallacious. Humans are not "compelled", dupes of the carrot's cunning plan. Humans are the ones making the choices, and the efforts.
Predomestic carrots are more resistant to disease and predation. When the humans become extinct most of the domesticated species will follow.
Carrots are simply carrots. There is no doubt that humans have selected them for their taste and colour, and have collected and bred them to encourage these traits. All the "interest" is in the human's domestic selection. Pretty eyed, calves and smiley faced sheep; waggy tailed dogs and passive cats are all examples of this. Llama that follow humans too. In the Andes they always eat the Llama that tends to wander from the herd. The consequences of this is more compliant and friendly Llamas.
None of these species have any interest, their interests lie in eating the fodder and having shelter, **** and, when they give birth, care for their young. There is no bigger picture for them.
Right, carrots have no subjective experience of interest. The llama, we presume, has a subjective experience of interest in food and mating. But we do things that are "in the interest of" carrots and "in the interest of" the llama when we provide them with what they need to survive. In this usage "in the interest of" simply means "good for". The farmer does things that are good for the carrots because being able to sell carrots is good for him. The shepherd does things that are good for the llama because having llamas means having milk, meat, and winter coats, things that are good for the shepherd.

By experience and observation, we gain objective knowledge as to what is specifically good for carrots, what is specifically good for llamas, and also what is specifically good for farmers and shepherds. And we also gain objective knowledge about what is bad for carrots, llamas, farmers, and shepherds.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3017
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Sculptor1 » November 22nd, 2020, 8:55 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 8:47 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 6:39 am


This is as crazy as it sounds.
Carrots are not "interested" they do not have the mental capacity to do that. All this evolutionary thinking is wholly anthropomorphic. Teleologically fallacious. Humans are not "compelled", dupes of the carrot's cunning plan. Humans are the ones making the choices, and the efforts.
Predomestic carrots are more resistant to disease and predation. When the humans become extinct most of the domesticated species will follow.
Carrots are simply carrots. There is no doubt that humans have selected them for their taste and colour, and have collected and bred them to encourage these traits. All the "interest" is in the human's domestic selection. Pretty eyed, calves and smiley faced sheep; waggy tailed dogs and passive cats are all examples of this. Llama that follow humans too. In the Andes they always eat the Llama that tends to wander from the herd. The consequences of this is more compliant and friendly Llamas.
None of these species have any interest, their interests lie in eating the fodder and having shelter, **** and, when they give birth, care for their young. There is no bigger picture for them.
Right, carrots have no subjective experience of interest. The llama, we presume, has a subjective experience of interest in food and mating. But we do things that are "in the interest of" carrots and "in the interest of" the llama when we provide them with what they need to survive. In this usage "in the interest of" simply means "good for". The farmer does things that are good for the carrots because being able to sell carrots is good for him. The shepherd does things that are good for the llama because having llamas means having milk, meat, and winter coats, things that are good for the shepherd.

By experience and observation, we gain objective knowledge as to what is specifically good for carrots, what is specifically good for llamas, and also what is specifically good for farmers and shepherds. And we also gain objective knowledge about what is bad for carrots, llamas, farmers, and shepherds.
Only time will tell if any of this is for the benefit of carrots and Llamas. The problem is that they are now fully dependant on the continued good fortune AND favour of the human species. This may prove very bad in the future.
That is why the word "interest" is fake.
If humans stop liking carrots; if no one wants Llamas for their products for ANY reason. Or if human life ends Llamas and Carrots are out.
Your obesession with objective and subjective views is not applicable here.

Attributing traits as interests if wholly anthropomorphic, not objective in any sense.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4498
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Terrapin Station » November 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 12:04 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 7:06 pm


That has nothing at all to do with whether a foundational or root moral stance qua a moral stance can be based on rationality in any manner.
If one cannot switch off rationality, it is because it is essential, a necessary condition of belonging to the human species. Everything that is essential, unavoidable, a necessary condition, is foundational. Rationality is foundational for everything a human can do, that includes taking a moral stance.
You blood has to be flowing to have moral stances, too, but moral stances--at least foundational ones, have nothing to do with your blood flowing.

Reason has the same relationship to moral stances.

Wossname
Posts: 416
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Wossname » November 22nd, 2020, 10:16 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 8:27 am
Marvin_Edwards » Today, 12:27 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 10:52 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Today, 4:14 am
Marvin_Edwards » Today, 4:14 am

1. Objective benefits and harms exist independent of conscious experience.
2. If it IS a net good for you to do something that harms no one else then you OUGHT to do it.
Marvin that is hopeless. It may be objectively good for me to go jogging every day, but I am not morally obliged to. I am coming suspect you are some sort of puritan maniac.
I'm not telling you what you what you ought to do. I'm explaining how an "ought" is derived from an "is". If you personally feel that you ought to go jogging every day, then that is coming from you, not me. Now, your doctor may well have told you that you ought to get some kind of exercise each day. Why? Because it is objectively good for people to get some daily exercise. But that's between you and your doctor. And in the end it is a judgement call that you make for yourself, whether to do what you personally feel that you ought to, or not.


Well then there we have it.

You keep sliding between different uses of “ought”.

There is the term as applied to the way the world is, as in “if you want that brick to fall you ought to try letting go of it”, or “if you want to improve fitness you ought to try jogging”, and then there is the term as applied to moral argument as in “you ought not to hurt people unnecessarily”.

I cannot see that you have anywhere derived the second, moral sort of ought, which is the topic of this thread, from the ought relating to the way the world is. You just keep restating your personal prejudices, which you are welcome to to be sure, but it is not reasoned argument. This has been pointed out by so many so often, and you have kept on trying to spin the one into the other, that it is a wonder you are not quite dizzy.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1021
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Count Lucanor » November 22nd, 2020, 11:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 9:32 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 12:04 am

If one cannot switch off rationality, it is because it is essential, a necessary condition of belonging to the human species. Everything that is essential, unavoidable, a necessary condition, is foundational. Rationality is foundational for everything a human can do, that includes taking a moral stance.
You blood has to be flowing to have moral stances, too, but moral stances--at least foundational ones, have nothing to do with your blood flowing.

Reason has the same relationship to moral stances.
Blood flowing might be one of many necessary conditions for humans at the lower order to carry out any activity, to feel, to think, etc., but not all of them, alone or in combination, make the necessary and sufficient conditions to allow the emergence of features at the higher order. Rationality is one of such things that add to the necessary and sufficient conditions for there being a moral stance. Any moral stance requires prior judgement about states of the world and ourselves. Moral stance implies a resolution, an arrival to a conclusive state where the subject feels able to qualify an action as good or bad, and this is the basis of morality as a normative system.

Gertie
Posts: 1167
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Gertie » November 22nd, 2020, 2:20 pm

Marvin
Gertie wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:23 pm
I have made the point that Interests are the key element which makes the difference between a morally neutral state of affairs or action, and a morally relevant one. And that interests come into being with the qualiative nature of conscious experience. You have incorrectly dismissed this as an appeal to subjective desires, rather than my actual position - qualiative experience is the very grounding of meaning, value, mattering and therefore morality.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
Anyone can disagree, but you can't make a sound argument for the basis of your disagreement, which if it's actually objective should be no problem. Alternatively if it's axiomatically true it's objective, everyone would have to agree with you. If only you see it as self-evident, it's not self-evident.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 991
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 22nd, 2020, 3:44 pm

Wossname wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 10:16 am
...

You keep sliding between different uses of “ought”.

There is the term as applied to the way the world is, as in “if you want that brick to fall you ought to try letting go of it”, or “if you want to improve fitness you ought to try jogging”, and then there is the term as applied to moral argument as in “you ought not to hurt people unnecessarily”.

I cannot see that you have anywhere derived the second, moral sort of ought, which is the topic of this thread, from the ought relating to the way the world is. You just keep restating your personal prejudices, which you are welcome to to be sure, but it is not reasoned argument. This has been pointed out by so many so often, and you have kept on trying to spin the one into the other, that it is a wonder you are not quite dizzy.
Let's fill those two statements out:
A. If you want that brick to fall then you ought to let go of it.
B. If you want to act morally then you ought not hurt people unnecessarily.

Now the content is different, but the form is indistinguishable, and the meaning of "ought" is identical. In order to accomplish X, you ought (or ought not) do Y.


"A" is true due to gravity.
"B" is true due to the objective goal of morality (to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone).

So, you didn't really need the Dramamine.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 991
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 22nd, 2020, 3:56 pm

Gertie wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 2:20 pm
Marvin

That's your opinion. I disagree.
Anyone can disagree, but you can't make a sound argument for the basis of your disagreement, which if it's actually objective should be no problem.
That too is your opinion. In my opinion, I have made a sound argument.
Gertie wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 2:20 pm
Alternatively if it's axiomatically true it's objective, everyone would have to agree with you. If only you see it as self-evident, it's not self-evident.
And, if your argument were self-evident, then I would already agree with you. Therefore, by your own logic, your argument is no more self-evident than mine.

Like you said, "anyone can disagree". In fact, it seems that disagreement is the "coin of the realm" in philosophical discussions. So, we can both expect disagreement from anyone who comments on our posts.

Gertie
Posts: 1167
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Gertie » November 22nd, 2020, 4:15 pm

Marvin
Anyone can disagree, but you can't make a sound argument for the basis of your disagreement, which if it's actually objective should be no problem.
That too is your opinion. In my opinion, I have made a sound argument.
No. I took your argument apart and showed you exactly how it wasn't sound. You either successfully rebut me or accept it. You just ignored it. To then just repeat it's sound is... well not philosophy.
Gertie wrote: ↑
Today, 2:20 pm
Alternatively if it's axiomatically true it's objective, everyone would have to agree with you. If only you see it as self-evident, it's not self-evident.
And, if your argument were self-evident, then I would already agree with you.

''No U!'' isn't a rebttal.

You've failed to justify your claim. I'm done.

Post Reply