popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 12:34 pmMarvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 11:18 am
Let's explore that. Why did humans invent morality? And how do we decide what we ought to do in a given situation?
You see, the Pragmatist wants to know the use of the notion (its "cash value"). How does the notion of morality, and thoughts of what we ought to do, function in our daily lives?Exactly.popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 12:35 pm The only reasonable answer to the above is, a morality based upon our common biology, that which supports life and well being is morality across the board.
Morality is based on desire.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
I said it is one of the things that adds to the necessary and sufficient conditions for there being a moral stance, not that it is the only thing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 9:35 amReason is not at all sufficient for a moral stance. And reason can't at all result in a root or foundational moral stance.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2020, 11:47 am
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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
Yes it is, of course.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 9:38 am Reason is also not necessary for moral stances, by the way.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
Which wouldn't make it any different than (blood) circulation, or having a kidney, or being conscious, or breathing, etc. in terms of sufficiency. It does make it different than those things in terms of necessity, because reason isn't necessary for having moral stances.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 12:00 amI said it is one of the things that adds to the necessary and sufficient conditions for there being a moral stance, not that it is the only thing.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 9:35 am
Reason is not at all sufficient for a moral stance. And reason can't at all result in a root or foundational moral stance.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
Great argument.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 12:01 amYes it is, of course.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2020, 9:38 am Reason is also not necessary for moral stances, by the way.
Here's the counterargument:
No, it isn't, of course.
I'll flesh that out a bit more, where you didn't. All that's required to have a moral stance is that you have a yay or boo-type reaction to some behavior. Reason isn't necessary to have a yay or boo-type reaction to behavior. That's purely an "emotional" response.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
Yes, I know those are the kinds of arguments you love. It's a Terrapin Station kind of argument.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 amGreat argument.
Here's the counterargument:
No, it isn't, of course.
Why should I? Who wants to waste lots of words that will not be of any interest to the other party.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 am I'll flesh that out a bit more, where you didn't.
No, that's not what is required and you have not provided a single argument to support it. It is just a statement of what you believe. Fine, keep believing it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 amAll that's required to have a moral stance is that you have a yay or boo-type reaction to some behavior. Reason isn't necessary to have a yay or boo-type reaction to behavior. That's purely an "emotional" response.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
If you're going to start the old "this is an argument but that's not" nonsense, then you'd need to set out your criteria for what's to count as an argument and why.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 9:11 amYes, I know those are the kinds of arguments you love. It's a Terrapin Station kind of argument.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 am
Great argument.
Here's the counterargument:
No, it isn't, of course.Why should I? Who wants to waste lots of words that will not be of any interest to the other party.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 am I'll flesh that out a bit more, where you didn't.
No, that's not what is required and you have not provided a single argument to support it. It is just a statement of what you believe. Fine, keep believing it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 8:00 amAll that's required to have a moral stance is that you have a yay or boo-type reaction to some behavior. Reason isn't necessary to have a yay or boo-type reaction to behavior. That's purely an "emotional" response.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
There would only need to be one instance of that to falsify "Rationality is necessary as a basis for moral stances," but there are many more instances of it than one.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
So, you keep peddling the idea that people can simply switch their rationality on and off. That's complete nonsense, far from any empirical fact.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 10:47 am By the way, that "All that's required to have a moral stance is that you have a yay or boo-type reaction to some behavior" isn't something that somehow hinges on an argument. It's an empirical fact, made the case due to there being people (a) who have a moral stance simply as a yay/boo reaction to some behavior or other, and (b) who have no rational activity as a basis for that yay/boo reaction present in their mind.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
How in the world would you be thinking that people are never conscious without being rational? Do you believe that they're rational when unconscious, too?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 9:09 pmSo, you keep peddling the idea that people can simply switch their rationality on and off. That's complete nonsense, far from any empirical fact.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 10:47 am By the way, that "All that's required to have a moral stance is that you have a yay or boo-type reaction to some behavior" isn't something that somehow hinges on an argument. It's an empirical fact, made the case due to there being people (a) who have a moral stance simply as a yay/boo reaction to some behavior or other, and (b) who have no rational activity as a basis for that yay/boo reaction present in their mind.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
But sure, S can have a moral stance while S has no rational activity occurring. It would be bizarre to say that people can't possibly be conscious without rational activity occurring. What would your mind have to be like, experientially, to constantly be thinking rationally?
Unless, again, you're defining rationality so broadly that you're basically making it synonymous with consciousness period. But that would be a highly unusual way to use the term "rational." (Not that you'd not be free to use a term an unusual way if you want to, but you'd need to keep explaining it to others if you want them to understand your claims.)
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
I asked you first: how in the world would you be thinking that people can be conscious without being rational?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 25th, 2020, 6:33 pmHow in the world would you be thinking that people are never conscious without being rational?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 24th, 2020, 9:09 pm
So, you keep peddling the idea that people can simply switch their rationality on and off. That's complete nonsense, far from any empirical fact.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
Can you show any examples of such bizarre cases?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 7:35 am Also, aside from the fact that people can be conscious without having rational mental activity present at that moment,
It seems obvious that what you call the "basis for that yay/boo reaction" is nothing but a supposedly a priori faculty, prior to experience. What is the scientific or philosophical basis for that a priori faculty?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 7:35 am I didn't even say "S has a moral stance while S has no rational activity occurring." I said "[S has a moral stance] . . . [with] no rational activity as a basis for that yay/boo reaction present in their mind."
If you ever get interested, this previous post with a link, which you previously ignored, could solve most of the misconceptions you have about the basics of human cognition: Prefrontal Cortex and Executive FunctionsTerrapin Station wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 7:35 amIt would be bizarre to say that people can't possibly be conscious without rational activity occurring. What would your mind have to be like, experientially, to constantly be thinking rationally?
Unless, again, you're defining rationality so broadly that you're basically making it synonymous with consciousness period. But that would be a highly unusual way to use the term "rational." (Not that you'd not be free to use a term an unusual way if you want to, but you'd need to keep explaining it to others if you want them to understand your claims.)
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Morality is based on desire.
For one, you can simply be awake/aware but have no thought present at all. I'm in that state often enough.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:46 pm I asked you first: how in the world would you be thinking that people can be conscious without being rational?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Morality is based on desire.
No, that's not possible. Although I could be very much tempted to accept your confession that you're often disconnected from common sense, I will decline. I'm surprised, though, of your naive understanding of cognition, which apparently confuses ordinary thought with systematic theoretical constructions, that is, between the basic common sense present in human awareness states and the elaborated concepts of complex reflections.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑November 28th, 2020, 9:11 amFor one, you can simply be awake/aware but have no thought present at all. I'm in that state often enough.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:46 pm I asked you first: how in the world would you be thinking that people can be conscious without being rational?
Common sense is not what you would call an irrational feature of cognition:
Common Sense
"Common sense is sound practical judgement concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people.
The first type of common sense, good sense, can be described as "the knack for seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done". The second type is sometimes described as folk wisdom, "signifying unreflective knowledge not reliant on specialized training or deliberative thought." The two types are intertwined, as the person who has common sense is in touch with common-sense ideas, which emerge from the lived experiences of those commonsensical enough to perceive them."
Just as there is common sense wisdom, there's common sense ethics:
Common Sense Ethics
‘Common-sense ethics’ refers to the pre-theoretical moral judgments of ordinary people.
Common-sense ethics relies on the five senses, as well as memory and reason, without the need to morally justify one’s position. This is because we have no other resources for making judgments, to call upon to justification of this reliance...
Likely, the choice made would be based on System 1 thinking. This is our intuitive system of processing information: fast, automatic, effortless, and emotional decision processes. There is no time for System 2 thinking, which is slower, conscious, effortful, explicit, and a more reasoned decision process.
System 1 thinking is consistent with common-sense ethics. We might quickly gauge the harms and benefits of the alternative actions, but not in a systematic way. There is no time to do so.
Common sense ethics is influenced by the values we hold dear. We are taught never to kill so we may choose to let the trolley do the killing without our interference.
Our common-sense ethics becomes stronger the more we practice intuitive decision-making and gain knowledge from our experiences – a better way to quickly think through what is most important. Common-sense ethics strengthens with repetition because we gain wisdom from our experiences and are better able to decide quickly what the right thing to do is."
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023