A Moral Universe

[Wossname]

Angel Trismegistus » Today, 9:37 am

That looks to ba a large and colourful poster AT.

Are you inviting suggestions as to where you can stick it?

[Terrapin Station]

So where would you say the principle obtains? (In other words, where would it exist as a principle?)

. . . In and about the actions and interactions of man with man . . . the name of certain standard of mental and emotional orientation that bears on the assessment of certain kinds of human behavior . . . . in the very being of man-in-the-world . . . active in mankind as a whole and has been at least throughout the history of mankind, allowing of course for exceptions and transgressions.

This answer, especially in light of the bolded/italicized parts, makes no sense to me given that in your view per an earlier post, it's not something an individual would be conscious of, it's not something they think. How do we have actions/interactions, mental and emotional orientations, assessments and principles in mankind where we're not talking about something an individual would be conscious of, something they think?

[Sculptor1]

I just love the way the Universe decides to make a star go super nova and possibly wipe out life on the other side of the galaxy.

We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.

The trouble with that advice is nobody knows the nature of things.

The reason I'm asking you this, by the way: Is that if we can't give an example of something in discordance with nature, we have an ethics (per your argument) where everything is morally right and nothing is morally wrong.

Interesting. What set or broader concepts is that a container for?

I see it fundamentally differently, in that the Is/Ought distinction is the basis for distinguishing morality from nature (the way the world Is).

No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.

The rest of the universe just doesn't care about anything.

The universe couldn't stand or create anything if it were confined to any morality.

____________The Moral Fundament____________

Define FUNDEMENT: 2a : buttocks. b : anus.

[Belindi]

Most things don't "tend to their own good"...

They do if Angel decides to define "good" as "that towards which things tend" (as he does).

As a result of the novel's (Pollyanna) success, the adjective "Pollyannaish" and the noun "Pollyannaism"[4] became popular terms for a personality type characterised by irrepressible optimism evident in the face of even the most adverse or discouraging of circumstances. It is sometimes used pejoratively, referring to someone whose optimism is excessive to the point of naïveté or refusing to accept the facts of an unfortunate situation. This pejorative use can be heard in the introduction of the 1930 George and Ira Gershwin song "But Not For Me": "I never want to hear from any cheerful pollyannas/who tell me fate supplies a mate/that's all bananas." (performed by Judy Garland in the 1943 movie Girl Crazy)[5]

[Angel Trismegistus]

____________The Moral Fundament____________

Define FUNDEMENT: 2a : buttocks. b : anus.

fundament, n.

1. The lowest or supporting part or structure.

2. That on which something immaterial, such as an argument or a charge, rests.

3. A fundamental principle or underlying concept.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundament

[Angel Trismegistus]

. . . In and about the actions and interactions of man with man . . . the name of certain standard of mental and emotional orientation that bears on the assessment of certain kinds of human behavior . . . . in the very being of man-in-the-world . . . active in mankind as a whole and has been at least throughout the history of mankind, allowing of course for exceptions and transgressions.

This answer, especially in light of the bolded/italicized parts, makes no sense to me given that in your view per an earlier post, it's not something an individual would be conscious of, it's not something they think. How do we have actions/interactions, mental and emotional orientations, assessments and principles in mankind where we're not talking about something an individual would be conscious of, something they think?

The principle "bears on the assessment" -- you skipped the verb. And not all that is mental is present to consciousness.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Angel Trismegistus » Today, 9:37 am

That looks to ba a large and colourful poster AT.

Are you inviting suggestions as to where you can stick it?

I suppose that your recommendation falls into the category of criticism, which was invited after all. But you're being much too philosophical in your criticism, don't you think?

[Angel Trismegistus]

They do if Angel decides to define "good" as "that towards which things tend" (as he does).

As a result of the novel's (Pollyanna) success, the adjective "Pollyannaish" and the noun "Pollyannaism"[4] became popular terms for a personality type characterised by irrepressible optimism evident in the face of even the most adverse or discouraging of circumstances. It is sometimes used pejoratively, referring to someone whose optimism is excessive to the point of naïveté or refusing to accept the facts of an unfortunate situation. This pejorative use can be heard in the introduction of the 1930 George and Ira Gershwin song "But Not For Me": "I never want to hear from any cheerful pollyannas/who tell me fate supplies a mate/that's all bananas." (performed by Judy Garland in the 1943 movie Girl Crazy)[5]

____________Pollyanna chastened____________

[Sculptor1]

Define FUNDEMENT: 2a : buttocks. b : anus.

fundament, n.

1. The lowest or supporting part or structure.

Yes, your bum

[Terrapin Station]

This answer, especially in light of the bolded/italicized parts, makes no sense to me given that in your view per an earlier post, it's not something an individual would be conscious of, it's not something they think. How do we have actions/interactions, mental and emotional orientations, assessments and principles in mankind where we're not talking about something an individual would be conscious of, something they think?

The principle "bears on the assessment" -- you skipped the verb. And not all that is mental is present to consciousness.

So you're claiming it as unconscious (or "subconscious") mental content?

[Angel Trismegistus]

Define FUNDEMENT: 2a : buttocks. b : anus.

fundament, n.

1. The lowest or supporting part or structure.

Yes, your bum

Your preoccupation with bums is rather curious. But duly noted. Here's something you'll appreciate.

[Angel Trismegistus]

The principle "bears on the assessment" -- you skipped the verb. And not all that is mental is present to consciousness.

So you're claiming it as unconscious (or "subconscious") mental content?

No, you're claiming that on my behalf.
The moral reflection and choice are conscious mental activities.
This moral consciousness is itself derivative of the principle of morality
However, this principle of morality is directive of moral consciousness -- a kind of mental template at this stage of human evolution -- neither present to consciousness nor unconscious, but rather the way the human mind works after 200,000 years.

[Wossname]

Angel Trismegistus » Yesterday, 4:57 pm

Are you inviting suggestions as to where you can stick it?
I suppose that your recommendation falls into the category of criticism, which was invited after all. But you're being much too philosophical in your criticism, don't you think?

Truly? Well:-

I note that Sculptor seems to have either developed or be developing an intriguing cognitive framework pertinent to the aforementioned sticking up of the poster.

You will not be surprised to learn that frivolous speculation has led me to wonder whether others might gain some amusement from the application of that model to physical circumstance. I wonder if, were that to be the case, any general good feeling engendered might be considered life affirming and in accordance with the moral principle of the universe?

In fact, were the event to be live-streamed to the masses there seems a possibility of a widespread degree of life affirming good cheer. Provided no severe harm was afforded your erstwhile personage it would seem almost a moral duty that you should be happy to undertake. I would further speculate that Sculptor himself might, given the appropriate PPE, volunteer to do the requisite sticking (though this is also speculation given both the travelling distance involved and my suspicion that Sculptor might not share your moral outlook).

I do recognise that, being human, Sculptor might run afoul of some twist of moral logic that might put him at moral hazard. (He might not mind though, for reasons given). But the principle remains. Since you seem very much a man of principle, what if someone were to paint your fundament red, and you were thereafter to present it “face on” as it were to an angry bull and let the bull act in accordance with its moral nature? There remains some regrettable risk of damage to your personage I admit, but perhaps if it was just a little bull, the risk of any damage might be more than compensated for by the life affirming good feeling engendered among the millions who might watch on some social media platform? I think careful camera work may be required. Clearly there is an additional risk that the sight of your brightly coloured backside might be anything but a life-affirming spectacle, but I’d wager the expression on your face at the moment of bull-ass impact might well more than compensate for matters here. I think there is an aesthetic here that could potentially be a matter of debate in its own right.

If it is not overly philosophical I say brace yourself man and do your moral duty!

[Gertie]

Angel

Not sure I understand your objection? I introduced the term subjective, in the sense that morality isn't an objective fact about the world (we can discover through reason). Hume says moral judgements are rooted in emotional responses.

My objection is you (and perhaps Hume -- that's what we're here to find out) beg the question if you assume that morality is subjective. The subjectivity of morality follows from Hume's Is/Ought argument. Therefore, moral subjectivity cannot be used to argue for the Is/Ought distinction. Our task is to test the validity of the Is/Ought distinction. Relying on what follows from the Is/Ought distinction (i.e., emotivism) to argue for the Is/Ought distinction ain't philosophical cricket.

Well I'm not seeing it, we're running on parallel tracks of thought, so lets forget subjective v objective for now. Hume's Is/Ought argument is that you can't find morality/right and wrong in the way the world Is, using Reason. That's either true or it isn't, but he can't prove a negative. If you don't believe it's true, you simply point out how you can get Oughts from the facts about the world. Your argument makes such a claim, and we can see if we agree it shows Hume got it wrong.


A separate issue is you asked me what made an action moral. And I agree with Hume, it's to do with our feelings about the action. Whether it invokes approval/disapproval, whether we feel an extra burden of obligation associated with it being the right/wrong thing to do. That will vary from person to person, time to time, place to place. If we could reason our way to the answer, you could just explain the reasoning and if I understood it I would have to agree with you that is The Correct Answer to whether any particular action has moral implications, and if it's right or wrong. Historically, as soon as that Reasoning was explained, that debate should be over.

There's no question begging there, right?

The reason I (dunno about Hume) can't give a straight yes/no answer is this - the term 'moral intuitions' lends a moral framing which didn't exist when these intuitions evolved. Simple as that. In themselves they are factually described as evolved responses which enable our particular species' survival. And from a Selfish Gene pov, the survival of the body until reproduction where adaptation can occur, is the way genes survive from generation to generation. This is the Source, which doesn't require or imply imo, the prefix ''moral''. (Your opinion might differ!)

The qualification has to do with a distinction you draw between moral intuition on the one hand and moral thought (intuition framed by discourse) on the other. Have I read you correctly?

If so, what are these moral intuitions before they are "conditioned" by discursive framing? And whence this discursive moral framing? How do we come by this template?


On "the Source": Why is action taken to survive not "moral" in your opinion?

It's just that it's generally understood that each of us want to survive and flourish, that wasn't seen as a mystery, altruism was what people puzzled over. And even now when people talk about 'moral' intuitions or predispositions, they're generally talking about why aren't we just concerned with our own personal welfare. But of course what amounts to our 'survival instinct' is also evolved, much earlier. Reasoning plays a part too, we accreted this big pre-frontal cortex which seems key to not just impulse control of selfish instant gratification, also whatever processes are associated with reasoning, and that thinky narrative voice in our head.

All of our characteristics can be explained by evolution, there's no need, and imo no justification, to invoke the term 'moral' in that Is evolutionary explanation.

The rest of the "compelling account" sounds plausible to me

.

OK, so we can agree the source of the concept of morality lies in our 'moral intuitions' and these in turn can be explained in terms of evolution?

So when you use the term "intuition" you refer to these "pro-social /unselfish predispositions" that likely arose as a result of increasing levels of socialization and acculturation down through the ages? Is that correct?

Moral intuitions, yes, but as I say our 'selfish' survival instincts are obviously evolved too . Our senses, sensations like hunger, lust, coldness, pain, also memory, the ability to imagine, predict, reason etc - are useful in survival terms whether or not we are a social species.

Our niche evolutionay advantage is our big plastic brains 'designed' for learning, which means we need caring for when young, and means environment plays a big role too. And parental care is where the potential for bonding/caring for others/sociality enters our evolutionary history. Of course human brains are now ridiculously complex and lots of neural activity is going on all the time contributing to how we model the world and ourselves in myriad different and interwoven ways.

[Sculptor1]

Define FUNDEMENT: 2a : buttocks. b : anus.

Yes, your bum

Your preoccupation with bums is rather curious. But duly noted. Here's something you'll appreciate.

What bum?
Bum's are in the eye of the beholder, holding the funadament.