A Moral Universe

[Sculptor1]

. Do you see any animal other than humans as morally accountable for behaviour?

In what way are humans accountable?

If you are talking about holding others to account then that is a human trait, sure. Humans are very good at using moral arguments to make people behave in prescribed ways.
Animals do behave morally, but most usually they are self accountable.
Even ants and other social insects act to control behaviour.
But you do not have to study mammals for long to see moral structures in place and behaviour controlled by members of the group.
So whilst there is a difference between humans and other animals, it is one of degree.

[Wossname]

Sculptor1 » 32 minutes ago

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 11:55 am
. Do you see any animal other than humans as morally accountable for behaviour?
In what way are humans accountable?

If you are talking about holding others to account then that is a human trait, sure. Humans are very good at using moral arguments to make people behave in prescribed ways.
Animals do behave morally, but most usually they are self accountable.
Even ants and other social insects act to control behaviour.
But you do not have to study mammals for long to see moral structures in place and behaviour controlled by members of the group.
So whilst there is a difference between humans and other animals, it is one of degree.

Yes I mean humans are accountable to each other for their behaviour. We may determine you have behaved badly (by some standard) and hold you accountable. You may, of course, deny it or reject the standard or invoke some other standard.

And I think you are right about some animals. I recall a TV programme about adult elephants banishing an overly aggressive younger male for persistent bad behaviour. Your mention of sociability does seem relevant. Social animals need some social structure (rule governed behaviour) to function as such.

I wonder about ants. I take your point about controlling behaviour. Is an ant's behaviour automatic and instinctive? I think it might be. (But I recognise shades of Nagel here). Again, it seems to me that an ability to choose is important or else how can we say someone made a wrong moral choice? So instinct, defined as automatic and unlearned behaviour, may not qualify. This does seem to link to issues of free will.

I have grave doubts about viruses.

A matter of degree? Perhaps so. I am not clear about where boundaries may lie or how such matters can be quantified but that does not invalidate your general point.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you going to explain how anything could be in discordance with the nature of things?`

[Papus79]

No, I think we agree on the meaning of "inevitable," but only one of us is applying it rigorously. Recall that we're talking about your correction of my statement #4, "All action in accordance with the nature of things is right." You assert the counterclaim that all action in accordance with the nature of things is "inevitable." But then you go on to cite actions taken to counteract natural extinction.

I'd agree with the point other posters have made in somewhat fewer words than I have - you literally can't contradict nature. If you counter the extinction of a given species through some legal protection you didn't intervene or counteract nature because you are nature. Similarly if we prevent human extinction we didn't counteract nature, we are nature so there's no way to counteract that.

This might sound like it's making a claim unfalsifiable, I'd argue rather that it's a problem with the container you're using. At least in the 20th and 21st century Anglosphere 'nature' has come to mean 'all that is actually real' (or perhaps pulling on Sheldrake or Chomsky all that we can rule out as not being superstition at present) and supernature is 'all that is made up or superstitious' (which to some end I don't think that's a great argument - at a minimum it's happening on neurons to which even that makes it part of nature in a limited way). In that sense 'natural' is practically a synonym for the placeholder term 'physical'.

[Papus79]

What living organisms would we have painting outside the lines of nature and into what are they painting?...

Please translate this oracle into clear and simple English for me. I don't understand what you're saying, or rather trying to say, here. Thank you.

I did immediately above. If it's not nature it's either not real or it's nature that we don't understand yet.

5. All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.

'discordance with the nature of things' is a non-sequitur.

Also for as much as a sweet and beautiful soul as Manly P Hall was, who'd go on these sorts of rants routinely about 'the nature of things', 'The Good', the centrality of maturity and integrity, all things I really personally like, I also had to admit - he was collecting a massive 'ought' and the ought he was collecting doesn't translate to an 'is'.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 8:09 pm

5. The point of morality is to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone (within one's own species). That is the nature of morality.

I think this is the way you have defined things Marvin, but, like Steve, I am not sure that is not somewhat arbitrary. Others would define things differently. Singer, for one, would accuse you of speciesism

The existence of competing species doesn't seem to be something that anyone can deny. Ultimately, the value of another species is judged by its value to our own. We exterminate viruses, ticks, and fleas. We cuddle puppies and kittens.

[Papus79]

Freedom from what?

From physical determinism. And it's less a matter of freedom from and more a matter of freedom to -- namely, freedom to choose to act morally or immorally.

I actually am a strict determinist, part of why I'm there - no one's been able to adequately explain to me how the nature of time doesn't force that upon us. Some would argue that quantum randomness is somehow a 'real' thing that would do different things at the same moment but I still don't know what they think that means or why they'd argue for it (and I've heard people like Eric Weinstein make interesting arguments that a large part of what's difficult with parsing the quantum is that it answers poorly formed questions with equally poor data - something the classical world tends to either not do or in ways that make the poverty of the question more apparent).

[Wossname]

y Marvin_Edwards » Today, 2:47 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 11:13 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Yesterday, 8:09 pm
Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 8:09 pm

5. The point of morality is to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone (within one's own species). That is the nature of morality.

I think this is the way you have defined things Marvin, but, like Steve, I am not sure that is not somewhat arbitrary. Others would define things differently. Singer, for one, would accuse you of speciesism
The existence of competing species doesn't seem to be something that anyone can deny. Ultimately, the value of another species is judged by its value to our own. We exterminate viruses, ticks, and fleas. We cuddle puppies and kittens.

We may treat another person according to their perceived worth to us, but there remains the question of whether it is right to do so. And if we treat another species by the same criterion, others, Singer among them, might dispute whether it was right to do so. If we consider human interests more important than animal interests we are guilty of speciesism (says Singer). I am not here debating the merits of that view, (it sounds as if you disagree with it), I am just pointing out that there are different views is all.

[Angel Trismegistus]

No, I think we agree on the meaning of "inevitable," but only one of us is applying it rigorously. Recall that we're talking about your correction of my statement #4, "All action in accordance with the nature of things is right." You assert the counterclaim that all action in accordance with the nature of things is "inevitable." But then you go on to cite actions taken to counteract natural extinction.

I'd agree with the point other posters have made in somewhat fewer words than I have - you literally can't contradict nature. If you counter the extinction of a given species through some legal protection you didn't intervene or counteract nature because you are nature. Similarly if we prevent human extinction we didn't counteract nature, we are nature so there's no way to counteract that.

This might sound like it's making a claim unfalsifiable, I'd argue rather that it's a problem with the container you're using. At least in the 20th and 21st century Anglosphere 'nature' has come to mean 'all that is actually real' (or perhaps pulling on Sheldrake or Chomsky all that we can rule out as not being superstition at present) and supernature is 'all that is made up or superstitious' (which to some end I don't think that's a great argument - at a minimum it's happening on neurons to which even that makes it part of nature in a limited way). In that sense 'natural' is practically a synonym for the placeholder term 'physical'.

I am not using the word "nature" in the sense you and others are taking it, that is, to mean all the physical phenomena of the world. I'm using it in its other sense of "inherent characteristic."

[Angel Trismegistus]

Please translate this oracle into clear and simple English for me. I don't understand what you're saying, or rather trying to say, here. Thank you.

I did immediately above. If it's not nature it's either not real or it's nature that we don't understand yet.

5. All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.

'discordance with the nature of things' is a non-sequitur.

Also for as much as a sweet and beautiful soul as Manly P Hall was, who'd go on these sorts of rants routinely about 'the nature of things', 'The Good', the centrality of maturity and integrity, all things I really personally like, I also had to admit - he was collecting a massive 'ought' and the ought he was collecting doesn't translate to an 'is'.

I hope I cleared up this misunderstanding in the post above this one.

[Angel Trismegistus]

From physical determinism. And it's less a matter of freedom from and more a matter of freedom to -- namely, freedom to choose to act morally or immorally.

I actually am a strict determinist, part of why I'm there - no one's been able to adequately explain to me how the nature of time doesn't force that upon us. Some would argue that quantum randomness is somehow a 'real' thing that would do different things at the same moment but I still don't know what they think that means or why they'd argue for it (and I've heard people like Eric Weinstein make interesting arguments that a large part of what's difficult with parsing the quantum is that it answers poorly formed questions with equally poor data - something the classical world tends to either not do or in ways that make the poverty of the question more apparent).

That you personally are a strict determinist is not a counter-argument to a free-willist argument. What is "the nature of time"?

[Angel Trismegistus]

What sort of impossibility are you asserting here -- logical? Empirical? Dialectical?
And what part of the OP argument (#1-20) does your demurrer address?

Logical and metaphysical/ontological.

Re #5--All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.

There can be no action in discordance with the nature of things.

I can't see how the counter-claim of logical impossibility can be sustained. My claim of accordance or discordance with the nature of things issues in no contradiction or absurdity, as far as I can see. But I am very interested to hear your argument for this counter-claim.

What is "ontological/metaphysical" impossibility if you distinguish it, as you seem to, from empirical impossibility?

I do believe we are talking past each other here inasmuch as we are using the word "nature" in two different senses -- I, in the sense of inherent characteristic"; you, in the sense of "the totality of physical phenomena."

[Angel Trismegistus]

____________A Moral Universe____________

The Argument

1. All things by nature tend to their own good.

2. The good is that to which all things by nature tend.

3. The nature of things tends toward the good of things.

There are many things in nature, and just a tiny minority in it gets in the business of qualifying the rest of them as good as or bad. The vast majority of nature simply doesn't care, because it is not made to care. Most things don't "tend to their own good", they are what they are, regardless of moral qualifications from humans.

4. All action in accordance with the nature of things is right.

5. All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.

Since humans are the only ones qualifying things as right or wrong, and humans are not driven by raw natural instincts, it is in fact possible that acting against what appears to be natural tendencies is qualified as right.

6. "Right" and "wrong" are values expressing accordance and discordance with the nature of things.

Given human's neuroplasticity and the ever changing social environment, it is very unlikely that "right and wrong", and what is "natural", can be fixed.

7. All actions are in this sense moral.

For humans only.

8. The collection of all actions is in this sense moral.

9. The universe is the collection of all actions.

0. The universe is in this sense moral.

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

My argument does not attribute moral consciousness to nature. My argument does attribute moral consciousness to man. My argument attribute moral action to nature, and moral ambiguity to man.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Steve3007 » Today, 8:41 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
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).

Yes I have had this discussion with AT elsewhere. It is a curious definition and one I deem counter-intuitive.

2. The good is that to which all things by nature tend.
Covid 19 tends to make many people ill and kill people in their thousands. I don’t see that as good.

4. All action in accordance with the nature of things is right.
Nearly all life is parasitical and exploits other life to survive. Life forms, in the struggle for survival, are essentially self-serving. What is so “right” about a description of self-serving, exploitative behaviour? And if humans are this way, choose to be this way, why is this not also right?

15. The action of man in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.
If Man chooses to go against the nature of things, not be self-serving and exploitative, seeks to conserve or protect other life forms for their own sake, is this then, wrong?

It is an odd thesis that all animals act in accordance with their nature apart from Man. If you want to know what humanity is like, then look at what humans do. I would suggest that what humans do is part of human nature. This does not seem to me to make whatever they do good and right, any more than what a virus does. What we deem good and right must surely depend on human needs and values, and these develop in the face of a largely uncaring universe, - indeed our values seem to set their face against such a universe and strive to make us something more than indifferent.

AT you seem to believe that you understand “the nature of things”. The difficulty for me is that this understanding seems to bear no resemblance to reality. (I will not use the f word out of respect for your feelings AT but that is how I view it). No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.

W, again I feel obliged to point out that your opinion "f" of my views is worth no more than my opinion "s" of your views. The only thing that matters is argument. You find my view of a moral universe "counter-intuitive"; I find my view perfectly intuitive. So the route of intuition will get us nowhere. My understanding of the nature of things comes from physical science. That the law of the jungle rules the nature of things is no counter-argument to anything in my argument. You don't need to harp on Covid 19; a lion bringing down an antelope will do. Both the lion and the virus act morally. Your "odd thesis" is something of a straw man -- in the second half of the OP argument man's moral nature is treated as a special case. The more fleshed-out argument for human morality is given in the OP of the thread entitled "On Morality: a dialogue."

[Marvin_Edwards]

y Marvin_Edwards » Today, 2:47 pm

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 11:13 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑Yesterday, 8:09 pm
Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 8:09 pm

5. The point of morality is to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone (within one's own species). That is the nature of morality.

I think this is the way you have defined things Marvin, but, like Steve, I am not sure that is not somewhat arbitrary. Others would define things differently. Singer, for one, would accuse you of speciesism
The existence of competing species doesn't seem to be something that anyone can deny. Ultimately, the value of another species is judged by its value to our own. We exterminate viruses, ticks, and fleas. We cuddle puppies and kittens.

We may treat another person according to their perceived worth to us, but there remains the question of whether it is right to do so. And if we treat another species by the same criterion, others, Singer among them, might dispute whether it was right to do so. If we consider human interests more important than animal interests we are guilty of speciesism (says Singer). I am not here debating the merits of that view, (it sounds as if you disagree with it), I am just pointing out that there are different views is all.

And I'm just pointing out how such differences are ultimately resolved, if they are ever to be resolved at all.