Gertie wrote: ↑November 21st, 2020, 10:49 am
Marvin
Sure. But we're speaking of functions directly related to outcomes that may be classified as "morally good" or "morally bad". And we're speaking of functions performed by living organisms. I don't know why you think that crystals and toasters have anything to do with living organisms. So, I would call that a "tangential distraction", and I should have asked you to stay on topic.
Moral connotations are "good's" and "bad's", "rights" and "wrongs". Living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. That which aids the living organism to do these things are beneficial. That which prevents these things are harmful. Giving a person dying of thirst in the desert a cup of water is morally good because he needs the water to survive. Giving a person drowning in a swimming pool the same cup of water is morally bad, because he doesn't need the water, he needs a lifeguard.
Are you really unable to see this?
I can see what you're saying.
It's the move from Is to Moral which needs justification, right? Here's your argument -
P1 : Moral connotations are "good's" and "bad's", "rights" and "wrongs".
- Agreed.
P2 : Living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce.
- Agreed.
P3 : That which aids the living organism to do these things are beneficial.
Beneficial to surviving - - Agreed.
P4 : That which prevents these things are harmful.
Harmful to surviving - Agreed.
C : Giving a person dying of thirst in the desert a cup of water is morally good because he needs the water to survive.
- Not justified by the premises.
The conclusion doesn't follow because you haven't justified what is good or bad, right or wrong about the state of affairs of biological organisms surviving. Which is what the argument is supposed to do.
And alternatively if you are claiming that the Is state of affairs of biological organisms surving, thriving and reproducing is
axiomatically morally good, I disagree that this is undeniably true.
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.
The natural objection to this is that the life of the fleas on our dog are not morally good for us or our dog. What is good for the flea is usually bad for us and the dog. What the flea does to survive, thrive, and reproduce creates problems for us. So, we destroy the flea.
So, the axiom that Life is Morally Good must be considered separately for us and for the fleas. The interests of the flea are different from, and can run counter to, our own interests, especially if the flea is carrying a disease.
Each of us, the flea, the dog, and me, behave as if the axiom "Life is Morally Good" is true. Even the carrot has mechanisms designed specifically to survive, thrive, and reproduce.
So, it is not such a stretch to agree to the axiom that Life is Morally Good as a reasonable and general assumption. That seems to be a guiding principle that explains the behavior of living organisms, even those incapable of explaining themselves.
You may point out examples where life is pretty horrible for some people, and in some cases it is so horrible that they kill themselves.
And it is also true that Life always ends with Death, so that the best we can hope for is a good life followed by a good death.
But these exceptions are also commonly understood. Life is Morally Good (until we die naturally or unless a specific life is particularly horrible).
Gertie wrote: ↑November 21st, 2020, 10:49 am
Because non-conscious organisms (eg carrots) have no
interests in the state of affairs of surving, thriving and reproducing. And interests are what give the states of affairs meaning, mattering and value. Without these, the concept of right and wrong is meaningless and irrelevant.
Only if you use subjective experience as a prerequisite for the notion of "interest". For me, the carrot has an interest in the availability of sunlight and water. And it need not have any subjective experience in order to really need those things.
Gertie wrote: ↑November 21st, 2020, 10:49 am
All of which we've gone over before.
Yes. And we can stop now in this thread if you like. But I suspect the topic of morality will be coming up often, and we may end up repeating all this again. But perhaps, instead of me presenting my views, you could detail your own theory of morality.
One side note: I think you need to copy the quote id of the post you're responding to in order to generate a notification to the person you're answering. You can generate this by using the " symbol in the upper right corner of the comment you're responding to.